|
On July 14 2010 05:49 Neobick wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2010 05:42 Gnosis wrote:On July 14 2010 05:29 Neobick wrote:
The answer to all these questions are......... Subjective!
Haha, I dont believe these questions have objective truths.
If you adhere to a religious/philosophical doctrine however there are.
To continue to discuss this, isnt it in our interest to discuss the concept of truth?
To overcome the contradiction you've presented (and perhaps personally believe?), it would seem that a discussion of truth is in our best interest. I believe questions of personal morality is subjective in nature, however Im aware of the contradiction of believing in subjectivity. And if the truths are subjective the concept of truth are subjective. But statements that arent empirically falsifiable I think can be seen as subjective. I heard quote somewhere. Maybe totally invalid and useless but it went something like "Objective truth is an infinitely small number of subjective ones."
I'm not entirely sure I'm following you. Perhaps you could clarify for me what you're saying, by framing your position outside of these questions (for just one moment). Since we are attempting a discussion of the nature of truth, are you saying that truth is subjective, regardless of whether or not we're answering questions of "personal morality" (not all of these questions are ones of "personal morality") or the "big questions"? Or are you saying that truth is both objective and subjective, depending on our considerations?
If you are saying that all truth is subjective, and declaring it objectively, then I hope you understand your position is in need of abandoning. It seems to me the criteria of "empirically falsifiable" is not well applied in discussions of ethics.
In any case, I "personally believe" morality to be objective, rather than subjective. The values of a culture are not necessarily definitive moral statements, and the two should not be confused (as is currently happening with a certain poster), as others have pointed out.
|
What is the point of life ?
For me one thing: To find Pleasure
What can bring you lasting happiness ?
Subjective. For me it is pleasure
What are your most important values ?
Adaptability, Intelligence, benevolence
What is good and what is evil ?
Subjective. They don't exist, just a social construct
What is Wisdom ?
Subjective. Once again social construct.
Personally i think that wisdom is something that one gains over time spent on this rock... but thats just me. It is not intelligence or logic, just experience from living.
|
On July 14 2010 06:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2010 06:17 oceanblack wrote:On July 14 2010 06:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 14 2010 06:05 Usyless wrote:On July 14 2010 05:49 zizou21 wrote:I am a philosophy major, and I have found that the theory of evolution answers most of these questions I am also a philosophy major and I have found that the theory of evolution answers none of these questions. I find people who think this are generally trading on a confusion between explaining people's opinions or tendencies of belief about X (say, morality) with explaining the facts about X. Finding an evolutionary story of our moral beliefs doesn't tell us the moral facts anymore than finding an evolutionary story of our mathematical beliefs tells us the mathematical facts. Except morality evolves as our community evolves (equal rights, anti-slavery, etc.), and our behavior is shaped by what best suits ourselves and our survival. On the other hand, mathematical facts really have no dependency on evolution... so I don't really understand your analogy. Can you elaborate please? Thank you. Your understanding of an objective morality "evolves" as you reason and derive knowledgeably. Just because we abolished the slave trade (in some places) in the last century, doesn't mean it hasn't been wrong since the inception of the human species until it has been abolished. Morality isn't objective. It's subjective. Mathematics is objective. I don't see how the two are comparable, nor how the latter could be part of that evolutionary analogy.
Hurray and so the baseless claims begin to arrive. First of all, you don't even properly respond to my post because I was not talking about mathematics whatsoever.
But anyways, explain to me how morality isn't objective.
Please explain to me how it is reasonable to accept that one person who subjectively justifies the murder of another person who just happens to subjectively justify the murder is wrong.
|
On July 14 2010 06:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Except morality evolves as our community evolves (equal rights, anti-slavery, etc.), and our behavior is shaped by what best suits ourselves and our survival.
On the other hand, mathematical facts really have no dependency on evolution... so I don't really understand your analogy.
Can you elaborate please? Thank you.
That's conflating what a community thinks is moral with what is moral. There are people who think that those are the same but they're practically nonexistent among serious philosophers. The commonsense view is that people who thought slavery was okay were wrong, and not that slavery really was okay until people decided it wasn't. So while what people THINK is right may 'evolve' (and it's worth noting that this sort of 'evolution' of cultural norms isn't the same as Darwinian evolution by natural selection), that doesn't mean that what IS right evolves.
the short version: to try and point out a disanalogy that way would beg the question against every major metaethical theory.
|
If you are saying that all truth is subjective, and declaring it objectively, then I hope you understand your position is in need of abandoning. It seems to me the criteria of "empirically falsifiable" is not well applied in discussions of ethics.
In any case, I "personally believe" morality to be objective, rather than subjective. The values of a culture are not necessarily definitive moral statements, and the two should not be confused.
This. But don't try to be politically correct and force yourself to insert that it is your own personal belief.
|
On July 14 2010 06:21 Gnosis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2010 05:49 Neobick wrote:On July 14 2010 05:42 Gnosis wrote:On July 14 2010 05:29 Neobick wrote:
The answer to all these questions are......... Subjective!
Haha, I dont believe these questions have objective truths.
If you adhere to a religious/philosophical doctrine however there are.
To continue to discuss this, isnt it in our interest to discuss the concept of truth?
To overcome the contradiction you've presented (and perhaps personally believe?), it would seem that a discussion of truth is in our best interest. I believe questions of personal morality is subjective in nature, however Im aware of the contradiction of believing in subjectivity. And if the truths are subjective the concept of truth are subjective. But statements that arent empirically falsifiable I think can be seen as subjective. I heard quote somewhere. Maybe totally invalid and useless but it went something like "Objective truth is an infinitely small number of subjective ones." I'm not entirely sure I'm following you. Perhaps you could clarify for me what you're saying, by framing your position outside of these questions (for just one moment). Since we are attempting a discussion of the nature of truth, are you saying that truth is subjective, regardless of whether or not we're answering questions of "personal morality" (not all of these questions are ones of "personal morality") or the "big questions"? Or are you saying that truth is both objective and subjective, depending on our considerations? If you are saying that all truth is subjective, and declaring it objectively, then I hope you understand your position is in need of abandoning. It seems to me the criteria of "empirically falsifiable" is not well applied in discussions of ethics.
Im saying if something isnt empirically falsifiable the truth is a matter of opinion and value. Something that cannot be disproven is an subjective truth in a sense.
I think that there is an empirical truth and the rest are just value-judgement and/or speculations.
Speculating about objective truth I will say that there probably exist one. But its an unknowable truth still a truth?
Varning: Purely my thoughts.
|
On July 14 2010 06:24 oceanblack wrote:Show nested quote +
If you are saying that all truth is subjective, and declaring it objectively, then I hope you understand your position is in need of abandoning. It seems to me the criteria of "empirically falsifiable" is not well applied in discussions of ethics.
In any case, I "personally believe" morality to be objective, rather than subjective. The values of a culture are not necessarily definitive moral statements, and the two should not be confused.
This. But don't try to be politically correct and force yourself to insert that it is your own personal belief.
There is no absolute truth. Because each of us shares an individualized experience, truth is nothing but a dream.
|
On July 14 2010 06:23 oceanblack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2010 06:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 14 2010 06:17 oceanblack wrote:On July 14 2010 06:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 14 2010 06:05 Usyless wrote:On July 14 2010 05:49 zizou21 wrote:I am a philosophy major, and I have found that the theory of evolution answers most of these questions I am also a philosophy major and I have found that the theory of evolution answers none of these questions. I find people who think this are generally trading on a confusion between explaining people's opinions or tendencies of belief about X (say, morality) with explaining the facts about X. Finding an evolutionary story of our moral beliefs doesn't tell us the moral facts anymore than finding an evolutionary story of our mathematical beliefs tells us the mathematical facts. Except morality evolves as our community evolves (equal rights, anti-slavery, etc.), and our behavior is shaped by what best suits ourselves and our survival. On the other hand, mathematical facts really have no dependency on evolution... so I don't really understand your analogy. Can you elaborate please? Thank you. Your understanding of an objective morality "evolves" as you reason and derive knowledgeably. Just because we abolished the slave trade (in some places) in the last century, doesn't mean it hasn't been wrong since the inception of the human species until it has been abolished. Morality isn't objective. It's subjective. Mathematics is objective. I don't see how the two are comparable, nor how the latter could be part of that evolutionary analogy. Hurray and so the baseless claims begin to arrive. First of all, you don't even properly respond to my post because I was not talking about mathematics whatsoever. But anyways, explain to me how morality isn't objective. Please explain to me how it is reasonable to accept that one person who subjectively justifies the murder of another person who just happens to subjectively justify the murder is wrong.
The analogy is comparing "an evolutionary story of our moral beliefs" to "an evolutionary story of our mathematical beliefs" (those are direct quotes), and I was explaining how the latter has no dependency on evolutionary theory, whereas the former very well might, considering evolutionary theory can actually explain morality (whereas evolutionary theory doesn't explain mathematics). Again, please explain this to me, because I have no idea how that analogy makes any sense at all.
And please don't change the subject.
|
On July 14 2010 06:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2010 06:23 oceanblack wrote:On July 14 2010 06:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 14 2010 06:17 oceanblack wrote:On July 14 2010 06:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 14 2010 06:05 Usyless wrote:On July 14 2010 05:49 zizou21 wrote:I am a philosophy major, and I have found that the theory of evolution answers most of these questions I am also a philosophy major and I have found that the theory of evolution answers none of these questions. I find people who think this are generally trading on a confusion between explaining people's opinions or tendencies of belief about X (say, morality) with explaining the facts about X. Finding an evolutionary story of our moral beliefs doesn't tell us the moral facts anymore than finding an evolutionary story of our mathematical beliefs tells us the mathematical facts. Except morality evolves as our community evolves (equal rights, anti-slavery, etc.), and our behavior is shaped by what best suits ourselves and our survival. On the other hand, mathematical facts really have no dependency on evolution... so I don't really understand your analogy. Can you elaborate please? Thank you. Your understanding of an objective morality "evolves" as you reason and derive knowledgeably. Just because we abolished the slave trade (in some places) in the last century, doesn't mean it hasn't been wrong since the inception of the human species until it has been abolished. Morality isn't objective. It's subjective. Mathematics is objective. I don't see how the two are comparable, nor how the latter could be part of that evolutionary analogy. Hurray and so the baseless claims begin to arrive. First of all, you don't even properly respond to my post because I was not talking about mathematics whatsoever. But anyways, explain to me how morality isn't objective. Please explain to me how it is reasonable to accept that one person who subjectively justifies the murder of another person who just happens to subjectively justify the murder is wrong. The analogy is comparing "an evolutionary story of our moral beliefs" to "an evolutionary story of our mathematical beliefs" (those are direct quotes), and I was explaining how the latter has no dependency on evolutionary theory, whereas the former very well might, considering evolutionary theory can actually explain morality (whereas evolutionary theory doesn't explain mathematics). Again, please explain this to me, because I have no idea how that analogy makes any sense at all. And please don't change the subject.
Again, you're just begging the question. If evolutionary theory can explain the moral opinions of a culture (which it can't anyway unless you misunderstand what "evolutionary theory" is), that still doesn't explain morality UNLESS the moral opinions of a culture are all there is to morality. And that's precisely the claim being denied.
|
On July 14 2010 06:24 oceanblack wrote:Show nested quote +
If you are saying that all truth is subjective, and declaring it objectively, then I hope you understand your position is in need of abandoning. It seems to me the criteria of "empirically falsifiable" is not well applied in discussions of ethics.
In any case, I "personally believe" morality to be objective, rather than subjective. The values of a culture are not necessarily definitive moral statements, and the two should not be confused.
This. But don't try to be politically correct and force yourself to insert that it is your own personal belief.
In that case, I retract the phrasing. Of course, this is why I used quotes.
On July 14 2010 06:26 Neobick wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2010 06:21 Gnosis wrote:On July 14 2010 05:49 Neobick wrote:On July 14 2010 05:42 Gnosis wrote:On July 14 2010 05:29 Neobick wrote:
The answer to all these questions are......... Subjective!
Haha, I dont believe these questions have objective truths.
If you adhere to a religious/philosophical doctrine however there are.
To continue to discuss this, isnt it in our interest to discuss the concept of truth?
To overcome the contradiction you've presented (and perhaps personally believe?), it would seem that a discussion of truth is in our best interest. I believe questions of personal morality is subjective in nature, however Im aware of the contradiction of believing in subjectivity. And if the truths are subjective the concept of truth are subjective. But statements that arent empirically falsifiable I think can be seen as subjective. I heard quote somewhere. Maybe totally invalid and useless but it went something like "Objective truth is an infinitely small number of subjective ones." I'm not entirely sure I'm following you. Perhaps you could clarify for me what you're saying, by framing your position outside of these questions (for just one moment). Since we are attempting a discussion of the nature of truth, are you saying that truth is subjective, regardless of whether or not we're answering questions of "personal morality" (not all of these questions are ones of "personal morality") or the "big questions"? Or are you saying that truth is both objective and subjective, depending on our considerations? If you are saying that all truth is subjective, and declaring it objectively, then I hope you understand your position is in need of abandoning. It seems to me the criteria of "empirically falsifiable" is not well applied in discussions of ethics. Im saying if something isnt empirically falsifiable the truth is a matter of opinion and value. Something that cannot be disproven is an subjective truth in a sense. I think that there is an empirical truth and the rest are just value-judgement and/or speculations. Speculating about objective truth I will say that there probably exist one. But its an unknowable truth still a truth? Varning: Purely my thoughts.
If it's an unknowable truth, then it is still a truth. But at that point you (or we) are dealing with two different questions: 1) is the nature of truth objective or subjective? 2) can we know the nature of truth? I do have to disagree with your assessment that something which isn't "empirically falsifiable" is a matter of opinion and value. Not to be "cheeky," I wonder how we would go about empirically falsifying your statement?
On July 14 2010 06:26 Misrah wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2010 06:24 oceanblack wrote:
If you are saying that all truth is subjective, and declaring it objectively, then I hope you understand your position is in need of abandoning. It seems to me the criteria of "empirically falsifiable" is not well applied in discussions of ethics.
In any case, I "personally believe" morality to be objective, rather than subjective. The values of a culture are not necessarily definitive moral statements, and the two should not be confused.
This. But don't try to be politically correct and force yourself to insert that it is your own personal belief. There is no absolute truth. Because each of us shares an individualized experience, truth is nothing but a dream.
Go one step further, your idea of "individualized experience" is nothing but a dream, and hence, on what authority do you comment on anything? Is it not possible that my "individualized experience" conveys absolute truth, whereas yours does not? The position is nothing but a mass of contradictory propositions...
|
Haha Gnosis, Im not saying I have the truth, Im just speculating baselessly without prior philosophy education, in my first post I declare, take my opinion with a shovel of salt.
|
On July 14 2010 06:35 Neobick wrote:
Haha Gnosis, Im not saying I have the truth, Im just speculating baselessly without prior philosophy education, in my first post I declare, take my opinion with a shovel of salt.
Speculation is fine, isn't this how one receives feedback for further speculation?
|
Life exists because it arose and reproduced; there's no reason to claim it has objective purpose. Morality exists in the brains of social animals because it increases the chances of genetic propagation; there's no reason to claim it has objective significance.
|
On July 14 2010 06:24 Usyless wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2010 06:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Except morality evolves as our community evolves (equal rights, anti-slavery, etc.), and our behavior is shaped by what best suits ourselves and our survival.
On the other hand, mathematical facts really have no dependency on evolution... so I don't really understand your analogy.
Can you elaborate please? Thank you. That's conflating what a community thinks is moral with what is moral. There are people who think that those are the same but they're practically nonexistent among serious philosophers. The commonsense view is that people who thought slavery was okay were wrong, and not that slavery really was okay until people decided it wasn't. So while what people THINK is right may 'evolve' (and it's worth noting that this sort of 'evolution' of cultural norms isn't the same as Darwinian evolution by natural selection), that doesn't mean that what IS right evolves. the short version: to try and point out a disanalogy that way would beg the question against every major metaethical theory.
Yes, I understand that. The concept of slavery has always been inherently wrong, even though we have only recently decided as a community to shun the practice of it. To be clear, I'm defining "morality" in the sense of how it changes based on how we grow as a community. You may be defining it as the absolute, unchanging standards. (There are many ways to define it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality .)
I suppose if you're viewing it in your way, I guess it makes sense that it's absolute and objective, like mathematics. The differences between our definitions is what caused the confusion, I think.
|
I really like Levinas's philosophy of ethics. I learned about it this year in my college English class. If you're into philosophy, give Levinas a look.
|
On July 14 2010 06:36 Gnosis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2010 06:35 Neobick wrote:
Haha Gnosis, Im not saying I have the truth, Im just speculating baselessly without prior philosophy education, in my first post I declare, take my opinion with a shovel of salt.
Speculation is fine, isn't this how one receives feedback for further speculation?
Speculation is entertainment, I like analysing and thinking, so in a sense I am just cruely entertaining myself on the expense of the philosophy majors.
But you are correct, speculation is the farmer of ideas.
You dont come of as chasing btw. My argumentation when I think I got the "right" answer is the definition of passive-aggressiveness.
Lets boil my assumptions down to one statement.
An objective truth are empirically falsifiably, or unknowable, if there is such a thing.
Thanks for making my own thoughts clearer.
|
On July 14 2010 06:45 Kishkumen wrote:
I really like Levinas's philosophy of ethics. I learned about it this year in my college English class. If you're into philosophy, give Levinas a look.
I would be as suspicious of any philosophy you learn in an English class as the economics you learn in a cellular biology class.
|
What is the point of life ?
Serve God, be a good person. Play starcraft.
What can bring you lasting happiness ?
Besides starcraft, the feeling that you'll useful and still are useful. I feel I'm very lucky in that I've had a good life and, am very happy almost all the time.
What are your most important values ?
Compassion, Empathy, Knowledge
What is good and what is evil ?
Good is resisting the tempations of evil and evil is putting the needs of yourself to the point of harming the needs of the many.
What is Wisdom ?
Eh, anyone who thinks they're wise probably doesnn't know much.
|
On July 14 2010 05:12 UFO wrote:
What is the point of life ?
What can bring you lasting happiness ?
What are your most important values ?
What is good and what is evil ?
What is Wisdom?
1. What's the meaning of life- a question that seems to have deep philosophical meaning, but it's really just a semantics problem. There is no meaning to life. People can try to make up meaning for their own lives, but life itself has no point and no meaning. It just is.
2. Friends, family and a generally positive outlook on life. I seem to remember a psicological study that mentions these, but I can't remember exactly offhand.
3. Reason, justice, freedom. You can go pretty far on those three.
4. Good are those things that promote a style of life that leads to generalized, long-term prosperity and happiness. Evil are those things that work against the goals of prosperity and happiness, or lead to death and extinction.
5. Wisdom is understanding how and why things work the way they do, and how and why things interact with each other. This goes for plants, animals, people, and systems such as the economy, politics and society.
|
On July 14 2010 06:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2010 06:17 oceanblack wrote:On July 14 2010 06:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 14 2010 06:05 Usyless wrote:On July 14 2010 05:49 zizou21 wrote:I am a philosophy major, and I have found that the theory of evolution answers most of these questions I am also a philosophy major and I have found that the theory of evolution answers none of these questions. I find people who think this are generally trading on a confusion between explaining people's opinions or tendencies of belief about X (say, morality) with explaining the facts about X. Finding an evolutionary story of our moral beliefs doesn't tell us the moral facts anymore than finding an evolutionary story of our mathematical beliefs tells us the mathematical facts. Except morality evolves as our community evolves (equal rights, anti-slavery, etc.), and our behavior is shaped by what best suits ourselves and our survival. On the other hand, mathematical facts really have no dependency on evolution... so I don't really understand your analogy. Can you elaborate please? Thank you. Your understanding of an objective morality "evolves" as you reason and derive knowledgeably. Just because we abolished the slave trade (in some places) in the last century, doesn't mean it hasn't been wrong since the inception of the human species until it has been abolished. Morality isn't objective. It's subjective. Mathematics is objective. I don't see how the two are comparable, nor how the latter could be part of that evolutionary analogy.
If morality is subjective then it has no real meaning. It is then simply a product of circumstance, and cannot be of any practical ethical use. Therefore, we should ignore this case and only discuss morality as either objective, or nonexistant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.neogaf.com/forum/images/smilies/laugh.gif)
