EPTIs Morality Subjective or Objective? - Page 25
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
| ||
|
Applecakes
Australia319 Posts
On May 12 2011 12:20 Noak3 wrote: Well it really depends on whether you're religious or not, I think. What kind of objective morality can exist besides one based on the idea of a deity? Personally I don't believe in any kind of god so I chose subjective, but it really depends on beliefs. Generally the most common defense of morality along these lines rests on an appeal to reason. For example, the golden rule. The existence of a god or gods does not change the validity of logic. | ||
|
tdt
United States3179 Posts
On May 12 2011 12:20 Noak3 wrote: Well it really depends on whether you're religious or not, I think. What kind of objective morality can exist besides one based on the idea of a deity? Personally I don't believe in any kind of god so I chose subjective, but it really depends on beliefs. Religion is just another form of indoctrination. Gods laws as opposed to man made secular societies have. Either way both have morals, both are indoctrinated usually from a child, both use threats to keep you in line. Burning hell for religion, prison for secular society. | ||
|
neohero9
United States595 Posts
On May 12 2011 12:21 Traveler wrote: The only basis I need is that I dislike their actions, and I have a majority behind me willing to support me on that, and even take action to prevent them from committing those actions again. Might makes right? So the lone gay couple in Saudi Arabia is immoral because the society is willing to kill them over it. Whereas if they were in West Hollywood they wouldn't be. | ||
|
Blyadischa
419 Posts
On May 12 2011 10:44 neohero9 wrote: My Ethics prof had a wonderful illustration of the incoherence of the idea that morality is subjective. Assume you subscribe to the view that morality is subjective. You're walking down the street, and a man stops you, points a gun at you, and says, "Stand and deliver: your money or your life!" (hint: he's mugging you). As you reach for your wallet (slowly), you raise the (ethically) obvious question: "How can you possibly do this to another human being? This isn't right!" The mugger, who happens to be of a philosophical bent, responds with an explanation-- in his culture, taking from those who cannot stop you isn't immoral, it's just how life works. So to him, his robbing you is not immoral. It is actually perfectly in line with his ethics. This leaves you, the moral subjectivist, with no course other than than to say "okay", hand him your wallet, and part ways. After all, he's not being immoral. You are having a disagreement over who has rights to the wallet, but it is not a moral one, and therefore you CANNOT CONDEMN HIM FOR STEALING YOUR WALLET. At least not with the force of morality. It's something like that. It's been like 8 months since that lecture. That is moral relativism, not moral subjectivism. Moral subjectivism recognises that morality is based on the based on the attitudes of the individual holding the values. That means one can hold a value to be absolutely right and also at the same time believe in subjectivity. The thought process of a moral subjectivist would more be like "People believe what they want -> I hold x to be true based on my attitude/experiences -> he did x to me and is wrong in doing so" | ||
|
DeltruS
Canada2214 Posts
Everything seems to come in a circle, and in the end I feel selfish that in this vast world, this huge pool of thoughts, opinions and emotions, I see good and bad through my own eyes; I feel exactly what my brain tells me to. My morality is entirely subjective despite the fact that, for myself, and anyone else, it feels objective. Strangely, the internet and other growing communications seem to be unifying the morality of the world and fusing it into every culture. The ground basis for wars is ending and humanity as a whole is gaining an identity. Sigh... I could go on forever about this but in the end there is no end to the numerous philosophical debates. We are. We exist. All we can do is live our lives as we see fit. People will have their own opinions on morality and the human psyche; their thoughts generally wont change, and don't really need to. | ||
|
tdt
United States3179 Posts
On May 12 2011 12:25 Applecakes wrote: Generally the most common defense of morality along these lines rests on an appeal to reason. For example, the golden rule. The existence of a god or gods does not change the validity of logic. Golden rule is a fallacy. What do you do if a man loves to fight and walks into a bar? Give him a fight? Golden rule says you're obliged to walk up to him and punch him in the mouth to get things started. | ||
|
j2choe
Canada243 Posts
On May 12 2011 12:21 Traveler wrote: The only basis I need is that I dislike their actions, and I have a majority behind me willing to support me on that, and even take action to prevent them from committing those actions again. Now you are probably stating that I have no objective basis, which I don't. But heck, I don't need one. (Also yes I am sort of pulling from Hobbes, but I had argued for this before my first philosophy course) Also, take away society, and I bet there would be no nagging feeling. As I have said before in this thread, people mistake that nagging feeling of conforming to society's wishes as something greater. Very well, then. Let's take away society. Let me throw this example out there: If you're walking alone in the woods and hear a cry for help, would you automatically and without a second thought turn in the opposite direction and run? Would you consider a person a coward for having done the same? Remember, there is nobody around to approve or disapprove either way. | ||
|
Nakama
Germany584 Posts
On May 12 2011 12:13 VIB wrote: The fundamental mistake you make is that you think semantics have any importance whatsoever  We don't protect society because it's "morally correct" to do so. We protect ourselves because we infer we need to do that to survive. and again u do the same mistake ... Why u want to survive ? mb cause its a good thing to live ??? U ALWAYS put in another moral value to explain me why we are protecting our socienty, or in other words why it is a good thing to do so and still u are saying there is nothing "good".... | ||
|
j2choe
Canada243 Posts
On May 12 2011 12:24 VIB wrote: ...really? Yes, really. Just one. Thanks. | ||
|
Traveler
United States451 Posts
On May 12 2011 12:29 j2choe wrote: Very well, then. Let's take away society. Let me throw this example out there: If you're walking alone in the woods and hear a cry for help, would you automatically and without a second thought turn in the opposite direction and run? Would you consider a person a coward for having done the same? Remember, there is nobody around to approve or disapprove either way. I would not immediately turn and run, my curiosity would probably get the better of me. But I am assuming that is not the answer you are looking for. I would not consider another person a coward for doing so. I might think they are dumb, since that cry from help might yield advantages, but that is the way I see it. Lets assume this cry for help is someone stuck in a bear trap when I go investigate. My decision to save them or not will only happen based on what I perceive the advantages or disadvantages to be. On May 12 2011 12:26 neohero9 wrote: Might makes right? So the lone gay couple in Saudi Arabia is immoral because the society is willing to kill them over it. Whereas if they were in West Hollywood they wouldn't be. No, there is no "right". To that society, they are immoral, and they do kill them. And? To that couple, it isn't immoral, and they get killed. And? And I don't like them being killed, so I need the Might to stop the killing. But I need no justification for my dislike of their killing that couple. On May 12 2011 12:30 Nakama wrote: and again u do the same mistake ... Why u want to survive ? mb cause its a good thing to live ??? U ALWAYS put in another moral value to explain me why we are protecting our socienty, or in other words why it is a good thing to do so and still u are saying there is nothing "good".... No actually he wants to survive BECAUSE he wants to survive (due to evolution programming him to want that). I'm sorry, I know there is a language barrier to your understanding our arguments, but you are still incorrect. Also you have to realize your presuppositions that are biasing your arguments. | ||
|
AlphaNoodle
United States21 Posts
| ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On May 12 2011 12:30 Nakama wrote: and again u do the same mistake ... Why u want to survive ? mb cause its a good thing to live ??? U ALWAYS put in another moral value to explain me why we are protecting our socienty, or in other words why it is a good thing to do so and still u are saying there is nothing "good".... You think surviving is good only because it's moral? If you do, I just think your definition of moral is too different from mine. We're not talking about the same thing. Your problem with me is not about morals, it's about semantics.What is "morals" to you? | ||
|
j2choe
Canada243 Posts
On May 12 2011 12:33 Traveler wrote: I would not immediately turn and run, my curiosity would probably get the better of me. But I am assuming that is not the answer you are looking for. I would not consider another person a coward for doing so. I might think they are dumb, since that cry from help might yield advantages, but that is the way I see it. Lets assume this cry for help is someone stuck in a bear trap when I go investigate. My decision to save them or not will only happen based on what I perceive the advantages or disadvantages to be. I accept your answer, but I don't believe it is completely honest. And it is certainly not representative of the vast majority of people, even those that proclaim subjective morality from the hilltops. I believe that, faced with that actual situation, if a child was stuck in that trap from whom you could not perceive any "advantages", you would still release that child. And if you did not, you would honestly feel like shit later on if you learned that he or she suffered hypothermia and died. That's just me though, and I obviously don't know you. | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
You guys realize that thinking "murder is wrong for most of the world, so it must be objective" is not really a valid criteria, right? And you guys realize this is asking what morality IS, not what you would like it to be, right? | ||
|
stevarius
United States1394 Posts
On May 12 2011 12:29 tdt wrote: Golden rule is a fallacy. What do you do if a man loves to fight and walks into a bar? Give him a fight? Golden rule says you're obliged to walk up to him and punch him in the mouth to get things started. Are you sure you even know what the Golden Rule is? There are actual criticisms of it, but yours is not one of them.... lol. Morality is either 99% or 100% subjective IMO. | ||
|
L3gendary
Canada1470 Posts
| ||
|
Applecakes
Australia319 Posts
On May 12 2011 12:29 tdt wrote: Golden rule is a fallacy. What do you do if a man loves to fight and walks into a bar? Give him a fight? Golden rule says you're obliged. That doesn't make it a fallacy. It just makes it a questionable standard. And even still, your objection is only correct depending on how you decide to understand the golden rule. For example, if you interpret the golden rule as taking into the consideration of other peoples' interests there is no problem for someone who enjoys fighting. However this is besides the point. I merely wanted to show Noak an example of how morality has been argued to be objective through intellectual faculties, not religious deference. | ||
|
tdt
United States3179 Posts
On May 12 2011 12:42 stevarius wrote: Are you sure you even know what the Golden Rule is? There are actual criticisms of it, but yours is not one of them.... lol. "He who has the gold, makes the rules." Seriously yes and I'm a sado masochist so can I come torture you? Point being the treat others ideal relies on everyone being on the same page of normative mores tenants of society which of course are subjective and indoctrinated. | ||
|
Traveler
United States451 Posts
On May 12 2011 12:41 j2choe wrote: I accept your answer, but I don't believe it is completely honest. And it is certainly not representative of the vast majority of people, even those that proclaim subjective morality from the hilltops. I believe that, faced with that actual situation, if a child was stuck in that trap from whom you could not perceive any "advantages", you would still release that child. And if you did not, you would honestly feel like shit later on if you learned that he or she suffered hypothermia and died. That's just me though, and I obviously don't know you. Well I tried to think of what I would do in Fallout, since that is the closest simulation I have experienced to a world without society. In Fallout there were plenty of times were I killed someone and took their stuff because I wanted it. Now in real life, society I think has biased me to feel bad about that choice. What if instead you knew that person was a murderer? What if you thought they would kill you? What if that person was a child? What if you thought you could raise that child and teach him so that he can help you on your travels. It all depends on situation. #Edit To the guy above me: Yes, yes you can if you wanted to. Can = possible, can =/= may. | ||
| ||
