Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Scholar
#76 Old 5th May 2010 at 2:28 AM
See, and that is the root of the problem in your argument. I'll be blunt; I think you are absolutely incorrect. There is absolutely no such thing as absolute, or universal, morals. I find such a thought as something sort of like, hm, I guess I would say sort of like exceptionalism. "Logic" is not infallible, nor is it objective; it is very much subjective. You say you come to your conclusions logically, and hence, are probably right. What, and I haven't? Well I have. I have expressed why I think the way I do. So I guess that means I'm also most likely right, too? Oh, but now have a conundrum. We both cannot be "probably right" when both sides are opposing.

Anyhow, you are saying you believe that, regarding this issue, it is a universal, objective moral. I, and others, disagree. Therefore, illegalizing abortion, because you believe it is "universal" and "objective" is, indeed, forcing others to comply. Others who adamantly disagree. This idea of "universal morals" is exactly a cause of oppression, because people who disagree must be deviants and therefore lesser to the majority (or supposed majority). And I would say no, you have not made "good" arguments, because morality is almost entirely subjective. There is almost nothing objective about it at all.

I just don't find it arrogant. I find the idea that there are morals that are "always right" oppressive, and I find it very dangerous. The fact you say they are "acting on falsehood" simply because they disagree, it's dictatorial! You are basically saying, "This is MY way! MY way is right! No exceptions!" because you are saying those who disagree are absolute wrong!

And lastly, you cannot compare Darwin's theory of evolution to this. This is not science, this is philosophy.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Advertisement
Scholar
#77 Old 5th May 2010 at 8:19 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Nekowolf
See, and that is the root of the problem in your argument. I'll be blunt; I think you are absolutely incorrect. There is absolutely no such thing as absolute, or universal, morals. I find such a thought as something sort of like, hm, I guess I would say sort of like exceptionalism. "Logic" is not infallible, nor is it objective; it is very much subjective. You say you come to your conclusions logically, and hence, are probably right. What, and I haven't? Well I have. I have expressed why I think the way I do. So I guess that means I'm also most likely right, too? Oh, but now have a conundrum. We both cannot be "probably right" when both sides are opposing.


It is a matter of building one's argument from fundamental principles, though. It's nothing personal, but your argument is not built in fundamental principles. By the mere fact that you casually reject the concept of responsibility, you are throwing out the basis of ethical judgement.

I'd also like to point out that, when you say we cannot both be "probably right", you are arguing against your own judgement that morality is subjective. The biggest problem with subjective morality is that it denies that there is any truth whatsoever in reality. If you speak at all of truth values, you are denying that there is moral subjectivity.

Quote:
Anyhow, you are saying you believe that, regarding this issue, it is a universal, objective moral. I, and others, disagree. Therefore, illegalizing abortion, because you believe it is "universal" and "objective" is, indeed, forcing others to comply. Others who adamantly disagree. This idea of "universal morals" is exactly a cause of oppression, because people who disagree must be deviants and therefore lesser to the majority (or supposed majority). And I would say no, you have not made "good" arguments, because morality is almost entirely subjective. There is almost nothing objective about it at all.


Disagreeing with the concept of objective morality is not a valid argument against the existence of objective morality. If there is objective morality, it exists whether people follow it or not. Even if not one person follows it, it still exists, immutable.

Further, if morals were truly relative, then there would be no basis on which to give any sort of punishment for any sort of crime. No matter how abhorrent the crime or how sociopathic the criminal, there would be no way to hold the person responsible because they could simply claim that their actions did not defy their own moral code.

If there is no such thing as objective morality, to take an example from Sam Harris, you could compare the Dali Lama to Ted Bundy and say that they have equally valid world views. Only a deluded handful would ever argue this. Arguing from any ethical theory short of emotivism or relativism will come to the conclusion that the Dali Lama's views are morally superior.

By saying that I have made no good arguments because morality is subjective, you are directly stating a preexisting prejudice on your part against the concept of objective morality. You further fail to support your statement that there is nothing objective about morality.

Quote:
I just don't find it arrogant. I find the idea that there are morals that are "always right" oppressive, and I find it very dangerous. The fact you say they are "acting on falsehood" simply because they disagree, it's dictatorial! You are basically saying, "This is MY way! MY way is right! No exceptions!" because you are saying those who disagree are absolute wrong!

And lastly, you cannot compare Darwin's theory of evolution to this. This is not science, this is philosophy.


You aren't providing any reasons for your argument. You have settled on using emotionally weighted labels to describe objective morality, without providing any logical basis in your supposed refutations of my argument.

It is more dangerous if there are no objective morals. This would allow people to act in any manner they choose, without the potential for any sort of corrective action. If you steal, you have done something that has bad consequences. You chose to take on those consequences, so you are responsible for the fact that they occurred. Therefore, in order to prevent future bad consequences, you must be made to not commit them. That, in a nutshell, is objective morality. It is simple, fundamental, and logically sound. From this basis, individual cases of applied ethics can be examined. If you're not even on this page, it is impossible to hold a meaningful debate. I think this is where a large chunk of the problem in abortion debates comes from. Moral relativity is in vogue, but many people never bother to examine it to see if it is logical. It is not.

Ignoring the fact that you shouldn't believe in any sort of truth if you think that morality is subjective, science isn't any more reliably accurate than philosophy. Science is based on certain assumptions, in much the same way as philosophy, in that it assumes that the universe is stable, that causality exists, that our perceptions are accurate, etc. If you want to be a hard-line nihilist, you can throw away these assumptions just as easily as you can throw away these assumptions underlying philosophy. If you carried nihilism to its logical end, you would be obligated to throw away those assumptions. Yet there has to be some form of existence, even if we are not perceiving it correctly, because the mere fact that we can perceive speaks to some sort of existence.
Instructor
#78 Old 5th May 2010 at 9:37 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Oaktree
Further, if morals were truly relative, then there would be no basis on which to give any sort of punishment for any sort of crime. No matter how abhorrent the crime or how sociopathic the criminal, there would be no way to hold the person responsible because they could simply claim that their actions did not defy their own moral code.


By "objective morality" you seem to mean "the currently most common accepted moral code in a certain society". Laws differ from country to country depending on the general most widely-accepted set of "morals" of that society. And the punishments for crimes will be set accordingly. Nothing is confusing about that.
That doesn't mean that the law is a reflection of this "objective morality" myth you speak of.
Instructor
#79 Old 5th May 2010 at 10:04 AM
Quote: Originally posted by fakepeeps7
I don't think grumpy_otter means "reasons" as in the reasoning sort of reasons. Say, for example, something goes wrong in the development process and the baby doesn't grow some necessary organ. In that case, the mother might miscarry because the child won't live. It has nothing to do with reasoning. It has to do with viability. Nature takes care of itself... even if it can't logically think through the scenario like we can.


I suffer from terrible insomnia and I know its no excuse but I did get some words mixed up. I meant to say fertility treatments, not IVF and where I got that from I'll never know. Either way I do think you are right and I did misunderstand. What I was thinking when I responded was this-there is nothing unnatural to me about hormone therapy, which a form of fertility treatment. It doesn't make sense that any treatment that helps the body to do what it naturally should do to begin with in order to allow conception would be something anyone could be against. That's where my insomnia kicked in, because in the general context of the arguments grumpy otter often makes, never did they lack common sense. So grumpy otter, I do hope you accept my apology for not giving you more credit.
Lab Assistant
#80 Old 5th May 2010 at 10:35 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Nekowolf
So I ask again, what the hell is your point.



When I say anything against abortion, gays, etc. I got answer: "It's natural.", so everything is natural then!

Abandoned account...
Scholar
#81 Old 5th May 2010 at 10:52 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Oaktree
Further, if morals were truly relative, then there would be no basis on which to give any sort of punishment for any sort of crime. No matter how abhorrent the crime or how sociopathic the criminal, there would be no way to hold the person responsible because they could simply claim that their actions did not defy their own moral code.

There would be no objective basis for punishment, but there would still be subjective reasons for punishment. It might be in my moral code to punish you for violating my moral code, regardless of what your moral code indicates.

Quote: Originally posted by Oaktree
It is more dangerous if there are no objective morals. This would allow people to act in any manner they choose, without the potential for any sort of corrective action. If you steal, you have done something that has bad consequences. You chose to take on those consequences, so you are responsible for the fact that they occurred. Therefore, in order to prevent future bad consequences, you must be made to not commit them. That, in a nutshell, is objective morality. It is simple, fundamental, and logically sound

This isn't a logical argument. You're just saying that if there was no objective morality, bad things would occur. Well, unfortunately, reality exists how it is regardless of whether we like it or not. We can't alter truth just on wishful thinking.
Scholar
#82 Old 5th May 2010 at 2:36 PM
Quote: Originally posted by jooxis
By "objective morality" you seem to mean "the currently most common accepted moral code in a certain society". Laws differ from country to country depending on the general most widely-accepted set of "morals" of that society. And the punishments for crimes will be set accordingly. Nothing is confusing about that.
That doesn't mean that the law is a reflection of this "objective morality" myth you speak of.


That's not what I'm saying at all. I have said a couple of times now that no society is perfect, and that there is room for my ideas on the matter to be imperfect. What I mean by objective morality is a universal standard that exists independently of humanity. It would be equally applicable to any species that developed enough sapience to make conscious decisions. Humans don't create the laws of objective morality, they must discover what those laws are. This is why I think at least basic logic and philosophy should be taught in public schools. If people learn to think deeply and logically, they can make more accurate decisions and judgments. This, in turn, would lead to the majority having more logically sound stances, making it easier to put those sound stances into law. I'm not saying that my personal philosophy should be taught. I was taught a variety of different ethical theories in my ethics class, but I chose the ones that I think are most logically sound.

Quote: Originally posted by Doddibot
There would be no objective basis for punishment, but there would still be subjective reasons for punishment. It might be in my moral code to punish you for violating my moral code, regardless of what your moral code indicates.


That is far too arbitrary and far more "oppressive" than having a universal standard. If we base punishment on the standards of a few individuals, we allow room for corruption and inconsistency. If you had different judges trying two different people who have committed nearly identical crimes for identical reasons, the personal feelings of those judges may differ, and then it would be considered acceptable to give wildly different punishments to the two criminals. That is inconsistent and unjust.


Quote:
This isn't a logical argument. You're just saying that if there was no objective morality, bad things would occur. Well, unfortunately, reality exists how it is regardless of whether we like it or not. We can't alter truth just on wishful thinking.


Bad things will occur regardless of whether there is objective morality. That doesn't mean that those bad things are okay and the people who do them should be left unpunished. I am not arguing that objective morality would have some kind of physical manifestation that would prevent someone from doing something bad. That clearly isn't the case. I am arguing that objective morality allows punishment for crime to be fair and just, and it protects society by allowing that punishment in the first place.
Instructor
#83 Old 5th May 2010 at 3:12 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Oaktree
What I mean by objective morality is a universal standard that exists independently of humanity.


To me this would mean empathy. We feel pain for others because we can imagine the pain ourselves, and I think this is what mostly shapes our objective morality.
Scholar
#84 Old 5th May 2010 at 4:27 PM Last edited by Nekowolf : 5th May 2010 at 4:38 PM.
Quote: Originally posted by Oaktree
It is a matter of building one's argument from fundamental principles, though. It's nothing personal, but your argument is not built in fundamental principles. By the mere fact that you casually reject the concept of responsibility, you are throwing out the basis of ethical judgement.

I'd also like to point out that, when you say we cannot both be "probably right", you are arguing against your own judgement that morality is subjective. The biggest problem with subjective morality is that it denies that there is any truth whatsoever in reality. If you speak at all of truth values, you are denying that there is moral subjectivity.

But your own "fundamental principles" that you are arguing on could also be wrong, and based in subjectivity. Just because you have "principles" does not mean your argument is infallible, nor does it mean you are automatically correct in your assumptions. I am basing my argument on some principles; you are simply rejecting them because they do not comply to your standard. Nor am I rejecting the concept of responsibility; what I am saying is you are placing unreasonable responsibility on the parents. This is what I was talking about when I said you are stretching what I am saying; I have never said they should forfeit all responsibility, or not be held accountable (depending on the situation (such as not using contraception and getting pregnant)). And no, you are wrong. It's as simple as that. Subjective morality does not deny truth in reality; it merely interpreters truth in different ways. Take murder; when you murder someone, they die, that is a truth. The punishments and how severe of a crime murder is, or if there is justification for murder, is subjective yet also a moral that differs in societies.

And no, I was not arguing against my own position. You are saying there are universal, objective morals. You said you are most likely right, because you used "logic" to come to your conclusions, hence they, and you, are probably right. I used "logic" in my position too, hence, I must also be "probably right," according to your own argument. It's a conundrum and your concept that you are correct because you thought it out is self-defeating. Either you are, in truth, making a very poor argument, or you are assuming that I am irrational, emotional, and that my viewpoint is completely invalid, bereft of thought. Too which I take great insult, as I believe I have quite adequately shown my capability of argumentative thought.

Quote: Originally posted by Oaktree
Disagreeing with the concept of objective morality is not a valid argument against the existence of objective morality. If there is objective morality, it exists whether people follow it or not. Even if not one person follows it, it still exists, immutable.

Further, if morals were truly relative, then there would be no basis on which to give any sort of punishment for any sort of crime. No matter how abhorrent the crime or how sociopathic the criminal, there would be no way to hold the person responsible because they could simply claim that their actions did not defy their own moral code.

If there is no such thing as objective morality, to take an example from Sam Harris, you could compare the Dali Lama to Ted Bundy and say that they have equally valid world views. Only a deluded handful would ever argue this. Arguing from any ethical theory short of emotivism or relativism will come to the conclusion that the Dali Lama's views are morally superior.

By saying that I have made no good arguments because morality is subjective, you are directly stating a preexisting prejudice on your part against the concept of objective morality. You further fail to support your statement that there is nothing objective about morality.


If not one person believe in it, it can no longer exist as a moral, short of divine providence. For a moral to exist, there has to be a counter-opinion. If not a single person believe killing is wrong, then killing is wrong is no longer a moral option, because it is not considered. That is what a moral is; a definition of what is right v. wrong; but if everyone in the world believed that one thing is right, or that one thing is wrong, then it's not a moral anymore because there is no longer any countering ideas. You're basically saying that what is right v. wrong exists outside of human philosophy. That just makes no sense.

Secondly, again, you are completely wrong. Because subjective, relative, does NOT mean "individual." Morals can easily be established by a community, by society. The argument that subjective morality means no punishment is absurd. And, as I already pointed earlier, there are still fundamental objective truths, such as killing someone makes them not alive anymore, that subjective morality can be based on; how bad is it really to take someone's life, is killing ever justifiable, should it be punishable. It is subjective because it is interpretable, because it can vary in opinion. What you are essentially saying is there is one absolute opinion, and all others are wrong, regardless of what they are.

Thirdly, YES! They are equally valid! You could say they are incorrect, you could say they do not make good arguments, but you cannot fucking say they are "invalid." Just because someone did something wrong, even a great wrong, does not mean that everything they absolutely say is invalid. That is what you are saying. That you must be morally superior in order to be valid. This is absolutely dangerous thought! Whites thought they were superior to blacks, so blacks were invalid. The Nazis thought they were morally superior to the Jews, so the Jews were invalid. The Vatican thought they were morally superior to the pagans, so the pagans were invalid. The Romans thought they were morally superior to the slaves, so the slaves were invalid. What you are saying in incitement of repression! We few who know the Absolute Truth are superior!, all others are wrong!, all others must not be listened to!, they know not of what they speak of!

And you're using a preexisting prejudice against MY view! So I guess we're fucking equal, oh but wait, I'm wrong, because you know the truth, therefore you must be superior! I've made plenty of argument for my position, nor did I ever say that there was nothing objective about morality. Never.

What I said was: morality is mostly subjective. Mostly. Subjective.

Quote: Originally posted by Oaktree
You aren't providing any reasons for your argument. You have settled on using emotionally weighted labels to describe objective morality, without providing any logical basis in your supposed refutations of my argument.

It is more dangerous if there are no objective morals. This would allow people to act in any manner they choose, without the potential for any sort of corrective action. If you steal, you have done something that has bad consequences. You chose to take on those consequences, so you are responsible for the fact that they occurred. Therefore, in order to prevent future bad consequences, you must be made to not commit them. That, in a nutshell, is objective morality. It is simple, fundamental, and logically sound. From this basis, individual cases of applied ethics can be examined. If you're not even on this page, it is impossible to hold a meaningful debate. I think this is where a large chunk of the problem in abortion debates comes from. Moral relativity is in vogue, but many people never bother to examine it to see if it is logical. It is not.

Ignoring the fact that you shouldn't believe in any sort of truth if you think that morality is subjective, science isn't any more reliably accurate than philosophy. Science is based on certain assumptions, in much the same way as philosophy, in that it assumes that the universe is stable, that causality exists, that our perceptions are accurate, etc. If you want to be a hard-line nihilist, you can throw away these assumptions just as easily as you can throw away these assumptions underlying philosophy. If you carried nihilism to its logical end, you would be obligated to throw away those assumptions. Yet there has to be some form of existence, even if we are not perceiving it correctly, because the mere fact that we can perceive speaks to some sort of existence.


I would have hoped I would not need to state explicitly my reasons for saying it's dangerous; I thought the concept of superiority over others was prevalent enough. Apparently, I was wrong. I have further explained why up above. And I have already dismantled what you stated in this quote above above, as well.

Quote: Originally posted by ivan17

When I say anything against abortion, gays, etc. I got answer: "It's natural.", so everything is natural then!

Firstly, homosexuality is natural. There's fucking science behind it, we have seen it in non-human species as well. All you are doing is rejecting the science behind in favor of your own, flawed, preconceptions. Secondly, abortion IS natural. That's what a miscarriage is; a natural abortion. However, there are also abortions that are not natural. If you dare say we shouldn't be doing "unnatural" things, you better take a good fucking look at what we have that IS unnatural that we do to our bodies. Stuff that saves lives. And there is plenty of it.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Lab Assistant
#85 Old 5th May 2010 at 7:50 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Nekowolf
Firstly, homosexuality is natural. There's fucking science behind it, we have seen it in non-human species as well. All you are doing is rejecting the science behind in favor of your own, flawed, preconceptions. Secondly, abortion IS natural. That's what a miscarriage is; a natural abortion. However, there are also abortions that are not natural. If you dare say we shouldn't be doing "unnatural" things, you better take a good fucking look at what we have that IS unnatural that we do to our bodies. Stuff that saves lives. And there is plenty of it.


Okay, so, for example, one girl is pregnant and she wants to do abortion. But I hit her in face and she falls in unconscious state. I put her in one room and she lives there until she bore. She is unable to do abortion. And she bore new healthy baby. So, everything is natural and I saved one life.
Also, if I kill someone with my hands, that's natural.
Why is then to be gay legal and kill someone illegal, when both is natural and we are all just animals.
When cat kill mouse, it's legal!

Abandoned account...
Scholar
#86 Old 5th May 2010 at 8:23 PM
...trust me. There are things I so want to say to you, but I refrain.

I will say this though; how absurd, I mean, really. I want to put nails into my head after having to read that. The very fact I have to explain this to you, I'm shocked. The ineptitude of that statement is just...wow.

Look, we as humans, are animals. This is fact. FACT! Unless you are some kind of android, which I know you are not. We are a species. We are made of organic tissue, we have neurological capabilities, we have natural processes, we require sustenance to survive. What about us ISN'T animal? The fact we can create? Well that's just because two main factors: 1. our intelligence and the development of our psyche, and 2. imposable thumbs.

The reason something is illegal is not because it is natural or not. It is because it has been to be found morally wrong, insufficient, or questionable.

Now, I would recommend perhaps you think before you speak, while you are still behind.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Scholar
#87 Old 5th May 2010 at 8:34 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Nekowolf
But your own "fundamental principles" that you are arguing on could also be wrong, and based in subjectivity. Just because you have "principles" does not mean your argument is infallible, nor does it mean you are automatically correct in your assumptions. I am basing my argument on some principles; you are simply rejecting them because they do not comply to your standard. Nor am I rejecting the concept of responsibility; what I am saying is you are placing unreasonable responsibility on the parents. This is what I was talking about when I said you are stretching what I am saying; I have never said they should forfeit all responsibility, or not be held accountable (depending on the situation (such as not using contraception and getting pregnant)). And no, you are wrong. It's as simple as that. Subjective morality does not deny truth in reality; it merely interpreters truth in different ways. Take murder; when you murder someone, they die, that is a truth. The punishments and how severe of a crime murder is, or if there is justification for murder, is subjective yet also a moral that differs in societies.


I have said before that I could be wrong. But I'm pointing out that my logic is more sound than yours is. You may disagree with me on this point, and that is why you argue back, but ultimately, either one of us is right or neither of us is right; we can’t both be right.

The responsibility I place on the parents is not unreasonable because the responsibility cannot fall on anyone else. The full consequences must fall on the parents because no one else made the choices involved.

Subjective morality denies truth because moral responsibility is based in consequence. The rightness or wrongness of an act depends on the consequences of that act, therefore, the rightness or wrongness of the act is "set in stone", so to speak. It is based in reality, so denying that an act can be right or wrong is denying that it has consequences.

The rightness or wrongness can be contextual, in that the consequences can vary in different cases of the act, but the rightness or wrongness does not vary based on opinion. Cultural relativity is just as wrong as any other form of moral relativity for this reason.

Quote:
And no, I was not arguing against my own position. You are saying there are universal, objective morals. You said you are most likely right, because you used "logic" to come to your conclusions, hence they, and you, are probably right. I used "logic" in my position too, hence, I must also be "probably right," according to your own argument. It's a conundrum and your concept that you are correct because you thought it out is self-defeating. Either you are, in truth, making a very poor argument, or you are assuming that I am irrational, emotional, and that my viewpoint is completely invalid, bereft of thought. Too which I take great insult, as I believe I have quite adequately shown my capability of argumentative thought.


Your logic may be flawed. My logic may be flawed. If one of us is arguing from flawed principles, that person is wrong. That is why I am attempting to outline my underlying principles and support those; it decreases the likelihood that my logic is flawed if I can show that my underlying principles are not. I am not saying that your viewpoint is bereft of thought, but I do think that your logic is flawed, and you do not always argue from logic.

Quote:
If not one person believe in it, it can no longer exist as a moral, short of divine providence. For a moral to exist, there has to be a counter-opinion. If not a single person believe killing is wrong, then killing is wrong is no longer a moral option, because it is not considered. That is what a moral is; a definition of what is right v. wrong; but if everyone in the world believed that one thing is right, or that one thing is wrong, then it's not a moral anymore because there is no longer any countering ideas. You're basically saying that what is right v. wrong exists outside of human philosophy. That just makes no sense.


If not one person believes killing is wrong, it doesn't change the value of that point of view. If everyone thinks that it's okay to kill at random, this is actively harmful to our species - really to any species (which is what I meant when I said that morality is a standard that exists independently of humanity). Rather than working to keep the species alive, the members of the species would be actively working toward its destruction. I think that it is bad for the species to be destroyed both because life is precious and because rationality is special. These are my underlying assumptions, (though I do have logical reasons for these assumptions) so you may disagree with me here. If you agree with one or both of those assumptions, however, you cannot disagree with the idea that murder is wrong because the wrongness rigidly follows from those assumptions.

You keep asserting that morality is based in human values, and that it varies from culture to culture. "Moral values" can vary, but it doesn't mean that those moral values are correct. Morality is what exists above and beyond those moral values. I have argued that morality is objective; given this, morality exists as an objective standard whether moral values match up to it or not. You are arguing that there is no higher standard than the moral values of human societies. This means that any moral values would be pointless, as they would be meaningless fabrications. As I explained above, this also fails to take reality into account because it ignores that there are consequences.

Quote:
Secondly, again, you are completely wrong. Because subjective, relative, does NOT mean "individual." Morals can easily be established by a community, by society. The argument that subjective morality means no punishment is absurd. And, as I already pointed earlier, there are still fundamental objective truths, such as killing someone makes them not alive anymore, that subjective morality can be based on; how bad is it really to take someone's life, is killing ever justifiable, should it be punishable. It is subjective because it is interpretable, because it can vary in opinion. What you are essentially saying is there is one absolute opinion, and all others are wrong, regardless of what they are.


My argument can just as easily be applied to communities. If one community does wrong to another, the wrongdoer can say that the wrong is not actually wrong because it is not wrong based on their moral views. This leads back to a situation in which a wrongdoer cannot be punished for their wrongdoing.

Subjectivity, based on your definition, seems to be simply refusing to make up one's mind. If you think through the consequences, you can come to a decision that is right, or at least more right. By saying that it is subjective, you're basically just saying that you don't want to go to the effort of making up your mind. If morality can truly vary based on opinion, once again we come back to a scenario in which no one can be punished, because there will always be some opinion that the crime is not wrong.

Quote:
Thirdly, YES! They are equally valid! You could say they are incorrect, you could say they do not make good arguments, but you cannot fucking say they are "invalid." Just because someone did something wrong, even a great wrong, does not mean that everything they absolutely say is invalid. That is what you are saying. That you must be morally superior in order to be valid. This is absolutely dangerous thought! Whites thought they were superior to blacks, so blacks were invalid. The Nazis thought they were morally superior to the Jews, so the Jews were invalid. The Vatican thought they were morally superior to the pagans, so the pagans were invalid. The Romans thought they were morally superior to the slaves, so the slaves were invalid. What you are saying in incitement of repression! We few who know the Absolute Truth are superior!, all others are wrong!, all others must not be listened to!, they know not of what they speak of!


They are equally possible, but not equally valid. If there are no good arguments for your position (you don't necessarily need to make them, but there has to be some way to make them) then your position is wrong, and you cannot continue to act in accordance with that position. A group thinking that they are superior and that another is invalid, does not make that group superior. If that group has no way to support their view, their view is invalid. Taking your example of whites believing themselves superior to blacks: there is no argument based in reality that supports this view; science shows that whites and blacks are essentially the same, so the viewpoint that one is superior to the other is invalid.

Even if you believe you know the absolute truth, you are still accountable to logic. This generally requires that you are held accountable by others, so long as those others are also held accountable to logic. This doesn't mean that you need to be held accountable to others who share your view, however, as a person can still be logical even if they simply start from the wrong assumptions. This is where the controversy in philosophy comes from: each person can be logical, while still arguing different points. This does not mean that each point is correct, however, as the difference in viewpoints comes from different base assumptions, and there can't exist contradiction in reality, so some of those base assumptions will be wrong. Ultimately, this makes it impossible to debate philosophy perfectly, but I think it is still worthwhile to debate, even with the inherent imperfections. It is better to believe in something, even if it may be wrong, than to believe in nothing. It also happens to be impossible to believe in nothing because humans simply can't think that way.

Quote:
And you're using a preexisting prejudice against MY view! So I guess we're fucking equal, oh but wait, I'm wrong, because you know the truth, therefore you must be superior! I've made plenty of argument for my position, nor did I ever say that there was nothing objective about morality. Never.

What I said was: morality is mostly subjective. Mostly. Subjective.


I never claimed to "know" the truth. I'm taking educated guesses about the truth. I'm arguing the logic behind my educated guesses and poking holes in arguments that are less logical, or that I believe are less logical.

Where do you draw the line to find where morality is subjective and where it is objective? What is your logical basis for arguing this?

Quote:
I would have hoped I would not need to state explicitly my reasons for saying it's dangerous; I thought the concept of superiority over others was prevalent enough. Apparently, I was wrong. I have further explained why up above. And I have already dismantled what you stated in this quote above above, as well.


You are not arguing about the danger of objective morality; you are arguing about the danger of humans armed with flawed perceptions of objective morality. I explained before that morality is not based in human standards, as consequences for certain types of actions are similar regardless of the species of the individual performing the action. Killing, by definition, takes a life, regardless of the species. The specific intent and impact of the act can vary from situation to situation, but there will always be some degree of wrongness in the act. The wrong may be the lesser of two evils in some circumstances, in which case it may be allowable for the perpetrator to not be punished at all. Self-defense, for example, is considered the lesser of two evils, so a person who kills in self-defense is usually not punished.

My argument regarding abortion was that abortion is only ever the lesser of two evils in some cases where it may affect the health of the mother, or if the mother did not consent to the act that lead to the pregnancy. This is because, through the argument that rationality should be preserved (see my first post in this thread), it is a greater evil to take away a rational life (the fetus) than it is to merely impact a rational life (the mother). At this point, I don’t know if there is much point in you and I even arguing at this level, as our more general philosophies don’t match, so they will only diverge even more as we look at specific applied cases.
Mad Poster
#88 Old 5th May 2010 at 8:38 PM
ivan17, why are you hitting women in the face and holding them captive? Because they don't agree with you?

You scare me, you know that?

Quote: Originally posted by fragglerocks
To me this would mean empathy. We feel pain for others because we can imagine the pain ourselves, and I think this is what mostly shapes our objective morality.


I think that's a good way of looking at it.

Unfortunately, we also need laws because there are too many people running around without any empathy.
Scholar
#89 Old 5th May 2010 at 9:30 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Oaktree
I have said before that I could be wrong. But I'm pointing out that my logic is more sound than yours is. You may disagree with me on this point, and that is why you argue back, but ultimately, either one of us is right or neither of us is right; we can’t both be right.

The responsibility I place on the parents is not unreasonable because the responsibility cannot fall on anyone else. The full consequences must fall on the parents because no one else made the choices involved.

Subjective morality denies truth because moral responsibility is based in consequence. The rightness or wrongness of an act depends on the consequences of that act, therefore, the rightness or wrongness of the act is "set in stone", so to speak. It is based in reality, so denying that an act can be right or wrong is denying that it has consequences.

The rightness or wrongness can be contextual, in that the consequences can vary in different cases of the act, but the rightness or wrongness does not vary based on opinion. Cultural relativity is just as wrong as any other form of moral relativity for this reason.

No. You think, you presume, your logic is more sound than mine. And those parents did not make the choice for their contraception to fail. You keep saying, "you should be prepared for the consequences," well being willing to abort is being prepared. It's just not a preparation you personally like.

No it is not! You are provide a flawed concept of what "subjective morality" is. It is not denying consequences or punishment! I have already gone into this. I have already stated how, and I will not get into it again. Refuse to accept my points as valid, I really don't care anymore. There's no use in arguing with someone who refuses to listen.

And you're also wrong on the whole right v. wrong based on opinion. This is nothing more but more of your crap about universal absolute truths. Objective morality is like Christ-based science. Loaded.

Quote: Originally posted by Oaktree
Your logic may be flawed. My logic may be flawed. If one of us is arguing from flawed principles, that person is wrong. That is why I am attempting to outline my underlying principles and support those; it decreases the likelihood that my logic is flawed if I can show that my underlying principles are not. I am not saying that your viewpoint is bereft of thought, but I do think that your logic is flawed, and you do not always argue from logic.

What bullshit. If one argues from flawed principles, that does not make them "wrong" as they may still make good points. I can say the same shit about your points, too. Yeah, I think YOUR logic is just as flawed and broken! I think your logic is based on the underlying concept that you have predetermined that you are correct in what you say! This whole freaking deal is not for the sake of argument, but to preside your views as superior and correct! You can say, "well, I may be flawed to" but you don't really think that, do you? So your "may be" is nothing but crap to cover your ass. It's like a damn Birther saying "Well, I'm not saying Obama is illegitimate, I'm just saying it's something to question." No, just as that Birther believe Obama is illegitimate, you believe you are correct and I am wrong, and this crap about "but I could be wrong" is nothing but bullshit.

Quote: Originally posted by Oaktree
If not one person believes killing is wrong, it doesn't change the value of that point of view. If everyone thinks that it's okay to kill at random, this is actively harmful to our species - really to any species (which is what I meant when I said that morality is a standard that exists independently of humanity). Rather than working to keep the species alive, the members of the species would be actively working toward its destruction. I think that it is bad for the species to be destroyed both because life is precious and because rationality is special. These are my underlying assumptions, (though I do have logical reasons for these assumptions) so you may disagree with me here. If you agree with one or both of those assumptions, however, you cannot disagree with the idea that murder is wrong because the wrongness rigidly follows from those assumptions.

You keep asserting that morality is based in human values, and that it varies from culture to culture. "Moral values" can vary, but it doesn't mean that those moral values are correct. Morality is what exists above and beyond those moral values. I have argued that morality is objective; given this, morality exists as an objective standard whether moral values match up to it or not. You are arguing that there is no higher standard than the moral values of human societies. This means that any moral values would be pointless, as they would be meaningless fabrications. As I explained above, this also fails to take reality into account because it ignores that there are consequences.


YES it does change the value, because the view that killing is wrong no longer exists! You could say it's wrong, looking in retrospect, but if nobody believes it then there IS no retrospect! And no, I could believe in both of those and still disagree! You are saying everyone thinks like you fucking do! You are saying, "well if they agree with me on these bullet points, then obviously they must agree with me as a whole." NO! You are projection yourself onto others. We could agree killing is wrong, but our ideas on how wrong it is, on the punishment for it, could be completely different!

And morality IS moral values! Norms, for example, are a collection of common practices! Societal morality is a collection of moral values adopted by that society! And no, it is not meaningless because it still benefits society or the individual. You are, yet again, completely stretching the argument to mold into your little narrow perspective.

Quote: Originally posted by Oaktree
My argument can just as easily be applied to communities. If one community does wrong to another, the wrongdoer can say that the wrong is not actually wrong because it is not wrong based on their moral views. This leads back to a situation in which a wrongdoer cannot be punished for their wrongdoing.

Subjectivity, based on your definition, seems to be simply refusing to make up one's mind. If you think through the consequences, you can come to a decision that is right, or at least more right. By saying that it is subjective, you're basically just saying that you don't want to go to the effort of making up your mind. If morality can truly vary based on opinion, once again we come back to a scenario in which no one can be punished, because there will always be some opinion that the crime is not wrong.

Absolute bullshit! That community can dictate a set of rules based on the moral majority, e.g. the majority believe killing is wrong, and therefore install punishments for the action. What you are say is completely shit.

My definition of subjectivity is based on perspective. You are the one arguing for "not making up one's mind." You are the one completley forgoing my arguments, throwing them out the window, then coming back and criticizing on falsities that YOU created. I'm getting real fucking sick of it. I will not leave this argument; instead, you can pull your head out of your ass.

Quote: Originally posted by Oaktree
They are equally possible, but not equally valid. If there are no good arguments for your position (you don't necessarily need to make them, but there has to be some way to make them) then your position is wrong, and you cannot continue to act in accordance with that position. A group thinking that they are superior and that another is invalid, does not make that group superior. If that group has no way to support their view, their view is invalid. Taking your example of whites believing themselves superior to blacks: there is no argument based in reality that supports this view; science shows that whites and blacks are essentially the same, so the viewpoint that one is superior to the other is invalid.

Even if you believe you know the absolute truth, you are still accountable to logic. This generally requires that you are held accountable by others, so long as those others are also held accountable to logic. This doesn't mean that you need to be held accountable to others who share your view, however, as a person can still be logical even if they simply start from the wrong assumptions. This is where the controversy in philosophy comes from: each person can be logical, while still arguing different points. This does not mean that each point is correct, however, as the difference in viewpoints comes from different base assumptions, and there can't exist contradiction in reality, so some of those base assumptions will be wrong. Ultimately, this makes it impossible to debate philosophy perfectly, but I think it is still worthwhile to debate, even with the inherent imperfections. It is better to believe in something, even if it may be wrong, than to believe in nothing. It also happens to be impossible to believe in nothing because humans simply can't think that way.

By saying they are "invalid," you are saying they are not worthy, or worth it, or too incapable to make a proper or reasonable decision. You are saying, "they don't count." And who determines if it's a "good argument?" So if I make a good argument that killing should be okay, then I guess I'm right and you're wrong. As long as it's "good." Right, and what, you're the judge? But if I'm arguing against you, of COURSE my argument is crap! Please, what you say makes about as much sense as the convict being his own jury.

And whites being superior to blacks WAS based on logic; their logic! Just like you are basing that you are correct, on YOUR logic! Your point, such as this statement, "if there is objective morality, those people who don't believe so are acting on falsehood," is that those who do not believe in objective morality, those who do not believe in these "set in stone" principles, are wrong. They are wrong! They have always been wrong! They will always be wrong! You are saying your position is superior to mine, because I am fucking wrong! No arguments, I am wrong, the fucking end, period! Well!...never mind, I'd probably get in trouble for saying that.

Quote: Originally posted by Oaktree
You are not arguing about the danger of objective morality; you are arguing about the danger of humans armed with flawed perceptions of objective morality. I explained before that morality is not based in human standards, as consequences for certain types of actions are similar regardless of the species of the individual performing the action. Killing, by definition, takes a life, regardless of the species. The specific intent and impact of the act can vary from situation to situation, but there will always be some degree of wrongness in the act. The wrong may be the lesser of two evils in some circumstances, in which case it may be allowable for the perpetrator to not be punished at all. Self-defense, for example, is considered the lesser of two evils, so a person who kills in self-defense is usually not punished.

My argument regarding abortion was that abortion is only ever the lesser of two evils in some cases where it may affect the health of the mother, or if the mother did not consent to the act that lead to the pregnancy. This is because, through the argument that rationality should be preserved (see my first post in this thread), it is a greater evil to take away a rational life (the fetus) than it is to merely impact a rational life (the mother). At this point, I don’t know if there is much point in you and I even arguing at this level, as our more general philosophies don’t match, so they will only diverge even more as we look at specific applied cases.

No, I'm arguing that you are walking a dangerous line for presuming that there is a superior v. inferior, and that is that those who are morally right are superior, and those who are morally wrong are inferior, as presented by saying that the Dalhi Lama is superior over Ted Bundy based on moral perspective, that anything Ted Bundy says is wrong, and invalid, therefore, as is defined by the word invalid, not grounded in logic and/or truth, therefore, irrelevant! Those who are "morally wrong" are irrelevant! Because no matter what, they are wrong! That is how horrific shit gets started! Because one side said, "We are right, you are wrong! We demand you accept it!" And when the other side didn't accept it? Well, I don't think I need to go into it!

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Instructor
#90 Old 5th May 2010 at 9:49 PM
Quote: Originally posted by ivan17
Okay, so, for example, one girl is pregnant and she wants to do abortion. But I hit her in face and she falls in unconscious state. I put her in one room and she lives there until she bore. She is unable to do abortion. And she bore new healthy baby. So, everything is natural and I saved one life.
Also, if I kill someone with my hands, that's natural.
Why is then to be gay legal and kill someone illegal, when both is natural and we are all just animals.
When cat kill mouse, it's legal!


I don't know why, but I've read this twice. My only thought is - are you really trying to make sense?
Inventor
#91 Old 5th May 2010 at 10:12 PM
Quote: Originally posted by ivan17
Okay, so, for example, one girl is pregnant and she wants to do abortion. But I hit her in face and she falls in unconscious state. I put her in one room and she lives there until she bore. She is unable to do abortion. And she bore new healthy baby. So, everything is natural and I saved one life.
Also, if I kill someone with my hands, that's natural.
Why is then to be gay legal and kill someone illegal, when both is natural and we are all just animals.
When cat kill mouse, it's legal!


I just assumed ivan was a troll who uses lots of and and when I see 'ivan' pop up on the screen, I see troll and don't take anything they type seriously.
Mad Poster
#92 Old 5th May 2010 at 10:59 PM
All those rolling smileys are making me dizzy...
Scholar
#93 Old 5th May 2010 at 11:18 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Nekowolf
No. You think, you presume, your logic is more sound than mine. And those parents did not make the choice for their contraception to fail. You keep saying, "you should be prepared for the consequences," well being willing to abort is being prepared. It's just not a preparation you personally like.


I implied that I think my logic is more sound than yours. You are completely ignoring the now numerous times I have said that I am not perfect and my views very well could be wrong. Abortion is not an acceptable way to prepare for the consequence of pregnancy, though. I have already run this argument into the ground and you clearly don't agree, so I don't see the point in explaining it all over again.

Quote:
No it is not! You are provide a flawed concept of what "subjective morality" is. It is not denying consequences or punishment! I have already gone into this. I have already stated how, and I will not get into it again. Refuse to accept my points as valid, I really don't care anymore. There's no use in arguing with someone who refuses to listen.


I have been waiting for you to make a logical argument. I could also easily say the same about you: that you refuse to listen. Every post you have made in response to mine has in some way misconstrued what I have said. You are doing what you accuse me of doing: forcing my argument into some narrow mold that you think it fits into.

Quote:
And you're also wrong on the whole right v. wrong based on opinion. This is nothing more but more of your crap about universal absolute truths. Objective morality is like Christ-based science. Loaded.


And this statement is loaded to make me look dogmatic and irrational. You are begging the question when you say that "objective morality is like Christ-based science". You are defining it as such and then acting like the fact that you defined it as such makes it an admissible argument.

Quote:
What bullshit. If one argues from flawed principles, that does not make them "wrong" as they may still make good points. I can say the same shit about your points, too. Yeah, I think YOUR logic is just as flawed and broken! I think your logic is based on the underlying concept that you have predetermined that you are correct in what you say! This whole freaking deal is not for the sake of argument, but to preside your views as superior and correct! You can say, "well, I may be flawed to" but you don't really think that, do you? So your "may be" is nothing but crap to cover your ass. It's like a damn Birther saying "Well, I'm not saying Obama is illegitimate, I'm just saying it's something to question." No, just as that Birther believe Obama is illegitimate, you believe you are correct and I am wrong, and this crap about "but I could be wrong" is nothing but bullshit.


You can stumble upon truth without having logical backing to it. That is part of what I said in the paragraphs you are responding to here. However, if you come to a conclusion from flawed principles that turns out to have no logical backing when you argue from true principles, then you are still wrong. Bohr believed that the atom was simply a material nucleus with observable electrons orbiting around it. Based on his knowledge at the time, this was a logical conclusion. We know now, though, that it is not an accurate model of the atom. He is wrong, even if his logic was not flawed.

If you think my logic is flawed, you should point out the flaws in my logic. So far, you have mostly been lashing out at my arguments emotionally, rather than rationally. I really would prefer it if you did try to point out logical flaws, because you can't have a debate if it is all based in emotion. Of course, I may disagree with you, as it may be that there are flaws in your logic, but I'm not simply ignoring what you say, as I am clearly taking the time to respond to you.

My intent is not to "preside [my] views as superior". My intent is to debate, but I can't debate properly if I shift my views every time someone makes a weak argument against me. Debate is about taking a stance and airing the logic in your stance. If someone were to make a more logical argument in favor of abortion than could be made against it, I would consider it. You can't walk into a debate room and expect everyone to magically end up on your side, though, particularly when much of your debating strategy relies on emotional appeal.

Quote:
YES it does change the value, because the view that killing is wrong no longer exists! You could say it's wrong, looking in retrospect, but if nobody believes it then there IS no retrospect! And no, I could believe in both of those and still disagree! You are saying everyone thinks like you fucking do! You are saying, "well if they agree with me on these bullet points, then obviously they must agree with me as a whole." NO! You are projection yourself onto others. We could agree killing is wrong, but our ideas on how wrong it is, on the punishment for it, could be completely different!


The view that we are composed of cells didn't exist before the 1650's. That doesn't mean that views opposing it were right until cells were discovered. A lack of knowledge does not change the truth value of any objective fact. It's really rather arrogant to think that the laws of the universe are entirely reliant on human perception, as the universe existed before we did and will continue to exist long after we're gone.

If you believe in both of those things but disagree with me, tell me why. I can't say that I'll automatically think you're correct, but if your logic is sound, I will consider it. Our ideas on how wrong it is may differ, but it still doesn't mean that we're both right.

Quote:
And morality IS moral values! Norms, for example, are a collection of common practices! Societal morality is a collection of moral values adopted by that society! And no, it is not meaningless because it still benefits society or the individual. You are, yet again, completely stretching the argument to mold into your little narrow perspective.


Some moral values may, in fact, be detrimental. Slavery used to be a commonly accepted practice, but slavery is actually quite bad for the individuals forced into slavery, as well as for the economy of the country employing slave labor. In this case, the moral value is wrong. The objective standard would be that slavery is wrong because it is detrimental and wrongs the individual.

Quote:
Absolute bullshit! That community can dictate a set of rules based on the moral majority, e.g. the majority believe killing is wrong, and therefore install punishments for the action. What you are say is completely shit.


You are missing my point. Take for example, a country that invades another because they want the resources that the other country possesses. The invader may think that it is okay for them to invade because the resources would benefit its people, while the invaded country would think that it was wrong for the invader to invade because the invader is infringing on the rights of the people of the invaded country. Each country has a different opinion on the morality of the situation, so how do you determine which country is right?

Quote:
My definition of subjectivity is based on perspective. You are the one arguing for "not making up one's mind." You are the one completley forgoing my arguments, throwing them out the window, then coming back and criticizing on falsities that YOU created. I'm getting real fucking sick of it. I will not leave this argument; instead, you can pull your head out of your ass.


You accuse me of thinking that I am absolutely right, yet you show signs of this thinking yourself. Further, if I understand you correctly, you are trying to make me stop debating. You can't have a debate if you're just going to tell your opposition "you're wrong because I said so, now stop arguing with me because you have to agree with me". If I am misinterpreting what you say, you have every right to correct me. I have had to correct you as you have misinterpreted me almost continuously throughout this debate. I'm not losing my temper with you, however, as I am aware that sometimes it is difficult to express yourself in a way that other people can understand. I came prepared to have to reiterate my ideas in new and creative ways to try to make my point clear.

Quote:
By saying they are "invalid," you are saying they are not worthy, or worth it, or too incapable to make a proper or reasonable decision. You are saying, "they don't count." And who determines if it's a "good argument?" So if I make a good argument that killing should be okay, then I guess I'm right and you're wrong. As long as it's "good." Right, and what, you're the judge? But if I'm arguing against you, of COURSE my argument is crap! Please, what you say makes about as much sense as the convict being his own jury.


I'm not saying that everything they ever believed is wrong. I have expressed some variation on this idea many times throughout this thread: it is possible to be wrong even if you are usually right, and it is possible to be right even if you are usually wrong. No one is perfect and no one is 100% wrong.

If you think you can make a good argument that killing is okay, I'd like to hear it. You are interpreting the concept of a good argument far too loosely. Even if it sounds logical when you tell it to yourself, it can still be hung out to dry when others examine the logic in it. If the logic in an argument turns out to be flawed, it is not a good argument. If the logic is sound, but the premise is flawed, it is not a good argument, though it is headed in the right direction, at least. A good argument is only that which most strictly adheres to logic and objective reality (note that I said reality, as it is the most fundamental place to argue from and it encompasses the nature of truth).

You also seem to have missed the paragraph I wrote about being held accountable to logic, which is determined by others who make use of logic. I said that it is possible for others to disagree, but to have used logic in coming to their conclusions. I take part in the Philosophy Club at my school; we are far from consensus on pretty much every issue, yet everyone makes use of logic in their arguments. We have different philosophical assumptions that we make, which causes us to differ in our opinions. Yet, some of the arguments have made me stop to consider, and I have been swayed on a couple of points. When I air my thoughts, I am airing them to people who make use of logic, so any criticism I receive on the logicality of my statements is certainly valid.

Quote:
And whites being superior to blacks WAS based on logic; their logic! Just like you are basing that you are correct, on YOUR logic! Your point, such as this statement, "if there is objective morality, those people who don't believe so are acting on falsehood," is that those who do not believe in objective morality, those who do not believe in these "set in stone" principles, are wrong. They are wrong! They have always been wrong! They will always be wrong! You are saying your position is superior to mine, because I am fucking wrong! No arguments, I am wrong, the fucking end, period! Well!...never mind, I'd probably get in trouble for saying that.


Some instances of it were based in logic with flawed premises, some were based in flawed logic. In any case, they are wrong because there is some flaw somewhere in their argument.

After I made that statement regarding objective morality and falsehood I went on in later posts to describe why morality is objective. So yes, I do believe that those who don't believe in objective morality are wrong in that regard, but you are taking my statement out of context.

Those who don't believe in objective morality may be right in some instances of applied ethics, though they get there through an incorrect route. For example, there are plenty of people who think that killing is wrong, which is a right assertion, but they don't get there through a logical route. So, no, I am not dismissing your argument out of hand simply because you don't believe in objective morality. If you had agreed with me that abortion is wrong, but you still didn't believe in objective morality (which is, in itself, a logical paradox) I would agree with your conclusion, even though I thought your method incorrect. In this case, I disagree with both your method and your conclusion, but I have provided reasons for my disagreement.

Quote:
No, I'm arguing that you are walking a dangerous line for presuming that there is a superior v. inferior, and that is that those who are morally right are superior, and those who are morally wrong are inferior, as presented by saying that the Dalhi Lama is superior over Ted Bundy based on moral perspective, that anything Ted Bundy says is wrong, and invalid, therefore, as is defined by the word invalid, not grounded in logic and/or truth, therefore, irrelevant! Those who are "morally wrong" are irrelevant! Because no matter what, they are wrong! That is how horrific shit gets started! Because one side said, "We are right, you are wrong! We demand you accept it!" And when the other side didn't accept it? Well, I don't think I need to go into it!


I said morally superior. I said nothing of anyone's worth as a human being. I'm not saying we should round up all the relativists and shoot them. I am saying that they are wrong in their views, but that doesn't mean that they are less worthy of fundamental human rights. When conflict occurs, it comes from human flaws, rather than flaws in objective morality. As I said earlier, no one is perfect. People can think they're right and be wrong. You are trying to shift blame off of humans and onto the nature of morality, when those wrongs come from human misinterpretations of morality.
Scholar
#94 Old 5th May 2010 at 11:16 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Oaktree
That is far too arbitrary and far more "oppressive" than having a universal standard. [...] That is inconsistent and unjust.

Yes it is, but that's not anything to do with whether morality is subjective or objective. We might want morality to be a certain way, but wanting will not make it so.

Quote: Originally posted by Oaktree
I am arguing that objective morality allows punishment for crime to be fair and just, and it protects society by allowing that punishment in the first place.

I know, but I'm telling you that's totally irrelevant. What we think ought to be true is not necessarily what is true. It's just wishful thinking to think it is.
Scholar
#95 Old 5th May 2010 at 11:39 PM
And yet here you are, saying morality is objective and universal. So if you believe in that morality, which I'm assuming you do, you cannot be wrong. Arrogant, just as I said. You can claim you can be wrong all you want, but your own argument says you are not, unless the idea that morality is objective and universal, in itself, is wrong.

I have made plenty of logical arguments; you simply cannot follow my logic. Misconstrue? Perhaps, instead, you should choose your words more carefully if you do not want to be misunderstood.

And the idea that moralities are set in stone, unchangeable, infallible, forever existing and forever prevalent IS dogmatic!

And I HAVE pointed out the flaws in your logic. Go back and read. Or stop ignoring them. Whichever it is. Also pointed out how dangerous your logic is. This idea that morality is so black and white. You simply shrugged that off, too. I've made plenty of argument for my positions. You just sit there and go on about "well your wrong, my morals say so. Because they are universal." Your own argument states it.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Scholar
#96 Old 6th May 2010 at 12:01 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Doddibot
Yes it is, but that's not anything to do with whether morality is subjective or objective. We might want morality to be a certain way, but wanting will not make it so.

I know, but I'm telling you that's totally irrelevant. What we think ought to be true is not necessarily what is true. It's just wishful thinking to think it is.


You have brought up valid points and I am thankful for that. I did provide weak arguments here.

I will point to what I have been saying to Nekowolf: In reality, there are consequences to actions. Those consequences must be taken on as the responsibility of the person who committed the action, as there is no one else who can be held responsible and nature/the universe is not a rational being capable of taking on responsibility. If the consequences are detrimental, the action should be stopped. Admittedly this is based on an assumption that what is favorable to life is good and what is detrimental to life is bad. You can agree with me or not on that point. If you disagree with me here, there is little point in continuing discussion on the matter unless you feel you can logically point out why morality should not be based in what is good or bad for life. The way to prevent the action from happening in the future is to stop the perpetrator from doing it again. For this reason, the perpetrator is punished in a manner that is judged to give incentive not to repeat the action. This is the simplest level of objective morality.

The individual cases of applied ethics must logically follow from this basis. There may be disagreement on individual cases as to what the punishment should be, or whether there should be punishment at all for a particular action, but this disagreement cannot change the nature of the action and the consequences of that action. If the consequences of the action happen to be detrimental, someone saying that they think the consequences are beneficial does not change the fact that they are detrimental. On a more complex level, there may be both beneficial and detrimental effects of an action. In that case, the magnitude of the benefits and detriments must be determined. Once again, there may be some disagreement, but the disagreement does not change the nature of reality.

Quote: Originally posted by Nekowolf
And yet here you are, saying morality is objective and universal. So if you believe in that morality, which I'm assuming you do, you cannot be wrong. Arrogant, just as I said. You can claim you can be wrong all you want, but your own argument says you are not, unless the idea that morality is objective and universal, in itself, is wrong.


My claim that there is objective morality follows from the fact that there is objective reality. I have explained it twice now. You can pick apart my argument if you'd like, but you haven't.

Quote:
I have made plenty of logical arguments; you simply cannot follow my logic. Misconstrue? Perhaps, instead, you should choose your words more carefully if you do not want to be misunderstood.


The same applies to you: if I can't follow your logic, you should choose your words better to be understood.

Quote:
And the idea that moralities are set in stone, unchangeable, infallible, forever existing and forever prevalent IS dogmatic!


It is not dogmatic because it is based in a strictly logical argument.

Quote:
And I HAVE pointed out the flaws in your logic. Go back and read. Or stop ignoring them. Whichever it is. Also pointed out how dangerous your logic is. This idea that morality is so black and white. You simply shrugged that off, too. I've made plenty of argument for my positions. You just sit there and go on about "well your wrong, my morals say so. Because they are universal." Your own argument states it.


Even if my ideas are dangerous, if they are true, they should not be ignored. I am of the opinion that truth is far more important than safety or comfort. My argument isn't as black and white as you seem to think. I have said that the conditions of an action can alter the moral value of it. I am asserting, however, that human perception cannot change the nature of reality.
Scholar
#97 Old 6th May 2010 at 12:21 AM Last edited by Nekowolf : 6th May 2010 at 12:58 AM.
What is "good" and what is "bad" for life, while in some aspects are objective, are subjective in others; by saying morality is objective, and only objective, you are disregarding the subjective aspects. You are posing a situation in black-and-white, either it is entirely objective or entirely subjective, when you state that morality is permanent, unchanging, objective, and universal. We can say slavery is "bad" because it abuses human life; but on the other hand, slavery could also pose to be beneficial to a society. THAT is subjectivity! We could argue it's wrong, yes, but as soon as you start using "life" as a basis of argument, you are delving into subjectivity. Because "life," in itself, is subjective. Not even the concept that we are "alive" is objective!

Right and wrong are subjective in just about every way! When you say, "this action is wrong, regardless, and that is universal," you are not being objective, you are being subjective! Because you are believing that that action is wrong, that is your personal opinion and you are projecting it into a dogmatic status!

You speak of benefit v. detriment, but and while the actions already performed cannot be changed, the consequences, indeed, can be changed! If someone kills another, the fact the victim is dead may not be changeable, but the consequences can be changed! Just an aspect of the consequences is objective. That he did something the resulted in the death of a person. Everything after that is subjective; his punishment is subjective, his attitude is subjective, how society judges this case is subjective. What if it was in self-defense? Well now some people will argue, no, it was wrong to kill the other person, while yet others will disagree and say, it was justified. This is subjectivity! This is morality!

The very fact you think morality is objective is subjective!

Is this "logical" enough for you? Or am I just too absurd for adequate logical argument?...in your opinion.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Scholar
#98 Old 6th May 2010 at 2:24 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Oaktree
Admittedly this is based on an assumption that what is favorable to life is good and what is detrimental to life is bad. You can agree with me or not on that point.

I disagree. This is the subjectiveness of morality. I'm a utilitarian, I say whatever maximises happiness/pleasure is good, and whatever causes pain or a lack of happiness is bad. Many disagree. There doesn't seem to be any objectiveness here, and if there is, we're bad at working it out.
Instructor
#99 Old 6th May 2010 at 3:16 AM
We could argue this in circles until we are blue in the face, but it doesn't change the fact that both forms of morality exist. I think they are closer linked than anyone thinks.

We all feel pain. That is objective. But some people take medication to relieve it, while others bring it on for pleasure. That's the subjective part. We all live and die-objective. But we all do it differently-subjective.

So in conclusion, we all have morals-objective. Our moral views differ-subjective.

Nekowolf is right, in my opinion, because even objective morality is, in itself, subjective. Even scientists use subjective reasoning. Oaktree, do you know something they don't?
Scholar
#100 Old 6th May 2010 at 4:03 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Doddibot
I disagree. This is the subjectiveness of morality. I'm a utilitarian, I say whatever maximises happiness/pleasure is good, and whatever causes pain or a lack of happiness is bad. Many disagree. There doesn't seem to be any objectiveness here, and if there is, we're bad at working it out.


I guess that means if "going postal" at my local school and killing 30 people would maximise my pleasure it is moral and good. Granted, it causes others pain, but who cares about them anyway? I maximised my happiness and pleasure.

You need to have a part about maximising your pleasure/happiness not being at the expense of other's happiness and pleasure.

Sarcasm is a body's natural defense against stupid.
 
Page 4 of 7
Back to top