• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 02:58
CEST 08:58
KST 15:58
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
RSL Season 1 - Final Week6[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0
Community News
Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed19Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8Team TLMC #5 - Submission re-extension4Firefly given lifetime ban by ESIC following match-fixing investigation17
StarCraft 2
General
Who will win EWC 2025? Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up Team TLMC #5 - Submission re-extension Geoff 'iNcontroL' Robinson has passed away Program: SC2 / XSplit / OBS Scene Switcher
Tourneys
Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond) FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series $5,100+ SEL Season 2 Championship (SC: Evo)
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame
Brood War
General
Corsair Pursuit Micro? BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ BW General Discussion Pro gamer house photos Flash Announces (and Retracts) Hiatus From ASL
Tourneys
BWCL Season 63 Announcement CSL Xiamen International Invitational [Megathread] Daily Proleagues 2025 ACS Season 2 Qualifier
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
[MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Path of Exile Nintendo Switch Thread CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread The Games Industry And ATVI Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 649 users

Is Morality Subjective or Objective? - Page 36

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 34 35 36 37 38 40 Next All
wei2coolman
Profile Joined November 2010
United States60033 Posts
May 14 2011 06:56 GMT
#701
Subjective morality, obviously.
Morals can only exist if there is a thinking involved. Morals are a form of thought. Therefore if thought can't exist w.o a thinker, it can't be objective.

Objective morality suggests that morals exist beyond the idea of thought.
liftlift > tsm
Rammblin Man
Profile Joined April 2011
Canada19 Posts
May 14 2011 07:58 GMT
#702
This is the danger of talking in metaphysics. You can run circles around each other all day and nobody can prove anything. Are morals objective or subjective? Who cares, its a meaningless question. If you want to prove that a specific moral is objective, how on earth would you do that? If you want to test whether a statement like "killing is wrong" is an objective truth, how on earth would you ever gather any empirical evidence? Instead, you can ask questions like "which morals are more likely to help an individual/society survive?" That is something you can actually test, but has absolutely nothing to do with morals being objective/subjective.

However, just because you can't prove morals to be objective doesn't mean that they are by default subjective. I think that the initial definitions are rather confused. Suppose there are universal "rights" and "wrongs," it would still be entirely possible to make up your own morals anyways. Our best knowledge tells us that the sky is blue, but I am perfectly entitled to believe that it's purple instead.

The statement "there is no set moral code which we all live by" is also pretty confused. This has nothing to do with morals being objective or subjective. There is obviously some sort of universal moral code - murder, rape are wrong, sharing is good, ect. - but this code exists in the same way as our laws exist. You are perfectly entitled to be existential and believe that murder is moral in the same way that you can believe that you can drive twice the speed limit. Create your own meaning in life all you want, you're still going to get sent to jail for killing somebody.

To ask whether morals are objective or subjective is to me a completely meaningless question. You might as well ask if traffic laws are objective or subjective. I'll bet if you asked this question in a poll, most people would answer objective instead of subjective, even though it would be in essence the exact same question. There is simply no way to actually answer this question, and the world wouldn't care even if you could come up with an answer.
Suisen
Profile Joined April 2011
256 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-05-14 09:00:32
May 14 2011 08:52 GMT
#703
On May 14 2011 16:58 Rammblin Man wrote:
If you want to prove that a specific moral is objective, how on earth would you do that? If you want to test whether a statement like "killing is wrong" is an objective truth, how on earth would you ever gather any empirical evidence? Instead, you can ask questions like "which morals are more likely to help an individual/society survive?" That is something you can actually test, but has absolutely nothing to do with morals being objective/subjective.




Why not? If you ask me that is exactly what morality is and exactly why it is objective, though hard to figure out and possibly unknowable.

Now you didn't define it very elegantly, but if morals are not what you hint at, what are they? Why do people still have a religious concept about morality when they already abandoned religion?


I think it is just silly to saw it's a silly question. It's like before people tried to figure out what pi is saying that it is silly to try to figure it out. It's not silly and morality is of extreme important.


As for traffic laws, they have clear goals that are hard to challenge. Some rules are objectively and measurable better than others. It's all just the same. In economy there are good policies, bad policies and grey policies. When we have perfect knowledge the grey will probably be gone. Why is morality different from everything else?

All you people who say you believe morality is subjective define morality in a way that can only be subjective while on the side you still believe in something else that you do recognize as objective but just don't call it that way when you really ought to.
LoLAdriankat
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States4307 Posts
May 14 2011 09:07 GMT
#704
I believe some elements of morality are part of the basis of the human brain. No matter what part of the world you're from, stealing is looked down on, murdering is bad, infidelity is bad, etc. When it gets to why people perform these actions, then it starts to get a little more subjective. Stealing food from someone may objectively be bad, but in subjective context, it could be on the good side of morality because he wants to share that food with the poor, Robin Hood style.
drwiggles
Profile Joined April 2011
Canada19 Posts
May 14 2011 09:21 GMT
#705
"Morals can only exist if there is a thinking involved. Morals are a form of thought. Therefore if thought can't exist w.o a thinker, it can't be objective."

The idea that objectivity means your not thinking is completely wrong. The whole idea of subjective thought, of subjective morality, is that you are looking through the veil of your own eyes and that what you measure as wrong or moral depends on your own views and experiences. The problem with that is you are looking through a veil, and depending on how that veil distorts your view, some people can come to some pretty unrealistic or shitty conclusions all the while believing that they're correct.

Thinking objectively means you can look at something, a choice, an idea, an action, and determine whether or not that action exists as moral or immoral, right or wrong. This is usually done by analyzing an actions effect on a person, society, ect. It is the idea that moral and wrong are standalone concepts that exist independently of the person viewing them. Whether you act on these views of right and wrong are up to you, but the fact you can see them clearly means you are at least able to think objectively. (In other words, being objective means you can see right and wrong, but not necessarily that you will always act accordingly).

Being objective, however, doesn't mean that you are always right in your views. It just means you tried to make an accurate judgement on the reality in front of you, using your senses to the best of their abilities, and your tool of thought to come up with your view point. (read: Objectivism)

Being subjective, in this aspect, means that you did/thought what you 'felt' was right, or what seemed right at the time; without actually looking at the consequences and trying to predict the results of that action.

All in all, thinking objectively is important, and despite what the poll says, I think most of the people in this thread think objectively (definitely most of the time at least) and are just confused with what subjectivity really is.
flowSthead
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
1065 Posts
May 14 2011 09:34 GMT
#706
On May 14 2011 18:21 drwiggles wrote:
"Morals can only exist if there is a thinking involved. Morals are a form of thought. Therefore if thought can't exist w.o a thinker, it can't be objective."

The idea that objectivity means your not thinking is completely wrong. The whole idea of subjective thought, of subjective morality, is that you are looking through the veil of your own eyes and that what you measure as wrong or moral depends on your own views and experiences. The problem with that is you are looking through a veil, and depending on how that veil distorts your view, some people can come to some pretty unrealistic or shitty conclusions all the while believing that they're correct.

Thinking objectively means you can look at something, a choice, an idea, an action, and determine whether or not that action exists as moral or immoral, right or wrong. This is usually done by analyzing an actions effect on a person, society, ect. It is the idea that moral and wrong are standalone concepts that exist independently of the person viewing them. Whether you act on these views of right and wrong are up to you, but the fact you can see them clearly means you are at least able to think objectively. (In other words, being objective means you can see right and wrong, but not necessarily that you will always act accordingly).

Being objective, however, doesn't mean that you are always right in your views. It just means you tried to make an accurate judgement on the reality in front of you, using your senses to the best of their abilities, and your tool of thought to come up with your view point. (read: Objectivism)

Being subjective, in this aspect, means that you did/thought what you 'felt' was right, or what seemed right at the time; without actually looking at the consequences and trying to predict the results of that action.

All in all, thinking objectively is important, and despite what the poll says, I think most of the people in this thread think objectively (definitely most of the time at least) and are just confused with what subjectivity really is.


You are conflating two different definitions of objective. Thinking objectively is when you try to think rationally, as in without emotion or prejudice. Objective morality has to do with morals that exist regardless of time or circumstance.

"In other words, being objective means you can see right and wrong, but not necessarily that you will always act accordingly" What it really means is that you can make a rational judgement. Seeing "right and wrong" assumes that a right and wrong exists. When people like myself say that they believe in subjective morality, it is because we do not believe that right and wrong exist, just that they are human made concepts.

I think this is something that is also confusing to many people. Just because a concept has been active for most of human history, does not mean that it relates to objective morality. All it means is that it is a possibility. It is also a possibility that human beings have certain genetic and biological tendencies that make it so that incest is less likely to be accepted, for example. In philosophy (and this is a philosophical argument), a genetic predisposition is not really an argument for objective morality. It is an argument for a state of being.

Speaking of which, that is another thing that I think people are confusing in this thread. Moral philosophy deals with the difference between "ought/should" and "is" statements, or "normative" and "positive" statements. "Is" statements are factual, how things are, so for example "murder has been illegal in many countries and is illegal today in many countries" is a positive, "is" statement because it is a fact. "Murder ought to be illegal because it is wrong" is a normative, or "ought" statement since it gives a value judgement.

This is important to note because even if everyone in the world followed one moral code, no one lied or killed, and everyone in the world agreed in every argument, that would not be a philosophical basis for a moral philosophy since it would just describe a positive situation rather than a normative argument.
"You can be creative but I will crush it under the iron fist of my conservative play." - Liquid`Tyler █ MVP ■ MC ■ Boxer ■ Grubby █
Stroggoz
Profile Joined March 2011
New Zealand79 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-05-14 09:43:31
May 14 2011 09:41 GMT
#707
huh? It's both subjective and objective i guess depending on how far you stretch the definitions. Since we all have our subjective moralities from genetics and life experiences, and we are all born as humans, which means we all have pretty similar morals, at least when you compare us to a preying mantis, or even a rock.

morality is an invention by nature, and Men have come to argue what morality is because of their own small differences. female preying mantis have an objective morality, its ok to kill eat your husband after fucking him. rocks have an objective morality: its nothing.



i really dont get why so much thought needs to be put into this subject. I really don't. maybe someone can explain to me why.

it is obvious though, that everyone has their own set of morals, which is similar but different to everyone elses because we are all humans.

a code of right and wrong is obviously different to each person but they are similar, or quite similar when you compare us to strange creatures and inanimate objects. And the fact that i can tell that humans have similar morals does bring objectivity to the argument.
flowSthead
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
1065 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-05-14 09:58:44
May 14 2011 09:58 GMT
#708
On May 14 2011 18:41 Stroggoz wrote:
morality is an invention by nature, and Men have come to argue what morality is because of their own small differences. female preying mantis have an objective morality, its ok to kill eat your husband after fucking him. rocks have an objective morality: its nothing.


I hope I do not sound condescending when I say this, but an introductory philosophy class would really help here. A preying mantis killing its husband after intercourse is not morality, subjective or objective. It is a biological action. In the same way, my need to eat food and breathe air is not any part of objective morality. Rocks do not have an morality, and until we figure out the capacity of the preying mantis, they as well do not have morality. Morality implies a value judgement. To use your example "killing my husband after sex is good/bad" would be part of a moral statement. Just killing him is not a moral statement.


a code of right and wrong is obviously different to each person but they are similar, or quite similar when you compare us to strange creatures and inanimate objects. And the fact that i can tell that humans have similar morals does bring objectivity to the argument.


No it does not. As I mentioned in the post literally above you, even if everyone had the exact same morals, it still would not be a good argument for objective morality. I can use an easier example for you. If you objectively believe that slavery is wrong, then you cannot base that on the fact that most people today believe that slavery is wrong. You have to make a different argument since thousands of years ago the majority of the human population thought slavery was not wrong.

This is a fallacy called argumentum ad populum, or I generally know it as argument by consensus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
"You can be creative but I will crush it under the iron fist of my conservative play." - Liquid`Tyler █ MVP ■ MC ■ Boxer ■ Grubby █
Denia1
Profile Joined January 2011
148 Posts
May 14 2011 10:14 GMT
#709
On May 14 2011 16:58 Rammblin Man wrote:
This is the danger of talking in metaphysics.


QFT. On a skeptical metaphysical level, it can be even argued that a continuous self doesn't exist, let alone morality attached to the actions or thoughts of that self. Wittgensteing would facepalm at this thread, but the question posed remains, and as such it better to dissolve it, if it cannot be solved.
Bomber, MC, Jaedong, Scarlett, Grubby, DeMuslim, fy, Super, n0tail, Illidan, Universe
drwiggles
Profile Joined April 2011
Canada19 Posts
May 14 2011 10:24 GMT
#710
On May 14 2011 18:34 flowSthead wrote:
You are conflating two different definitions of objective. Thinking objectively is when you try to think rationally, as in without emotion or prejudice. Objective morality has to do with morals that exist regardless of time or circumstance.

"In other words, being objective means you can see right and wrong, but not necessarily that you will always act accordingly" What it really means is that you can make a rational judgement. Seeing "right and wrong" assumes that a right and wrong exists. When people like myself say that they believe in subjective morality, it is because we do not believe that right and wrong exist, just that they are human made concepts.


I think you quoted me for being wrong.. and than said some of what I said. Anyway..

Rationality =/= objectivity. Rationality is a subjective view point. eg. "Spraying battery acid on those girls seemed like the rational thing to do because I don't believe girls should go to school here in Afghanistan."

That is what a Al-Qaeda soldier would say to himself and he would be 'right' in terms of his subjective view point.

But the rest of the world can look at that (even subjectively) and determine that his actions were obviously immoral. Except the other Al-Qaeda soldiers who will look at his action behind their subjective view points and see what he did as right.

So as you can see, people thinking subjectively (in terms of their feelings, personal views towards girls studying) can be either right or wrong when it comes to spraying school girls with battery acid. But objectively, you can say: "You shouldn't hurt other people", and therefore spraying girls with battery acid will be called definitely an immoral action.

You can even measure that soldiers actions effect on society and find that yes, indeed that society would be better off if girls were free to go to school without fear. This idea of a measurement and an accurate one at that, is objectivity. The idea that right and wrong exist, and just have to be found..

I do agree that you believe that right and wrong are human made concepts. If aliens looked at two people spraying battery acid on each other they wouldn't know whether it was an act of evil, or just our culture. But despite this, I know that right and wrong exist, independently of what we all think, and that even though an outside observer doesn't know right or wrong for us humans, these ideas can be determined and measured by seeing the effects on the girls, and the effects on society because of those actions. So that even aliens can determine the morality of an action by being objective and viewing that action's results and consequences.

Anyway it's late. The topic asked "Is morality subjective or objective". I say its objective because although it exists subjectively to everyone, these subjective thinkers can be either right or wrong. By looking at an action objectively and finding out whether it was good or bad, moral or immoral, by seeing its consequences over time, or by trying to accurately predict them in the first place, we can find a true answer for right or wrong that is independent of what we thought, felt, believed at that time.
Stroggoz
Profile Joined March 2011
New Zealand79 Posts
May 14 2011 10:27 GMT
#711
On May 14 2011 18:58 flowSthead wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 14 2011 18:41 Stroggoz wrote:
morality is an invention by nature, and Men have come to argue what morality is because of their own small differences. female preying mantis have an objective morality, its ok to kill eat your husband after fucking him. rocks have an objective morality: its nothing.


I hope I do not sound condescending when I say this, but an introductory philosophy class would really help here. A preying mantis killing its husband after intercourse is not morality, subjective or objective. It is a biological action. In the same way, my need to eat food and breathe air is not any part of objective morality. Rocks do not have an morality, and until we figure out the capacity of the preying mantis, they as well do not have morality. Morality implies a value judgement. To use your example "killing my husband after sex is good/bad" would be part of a moral statement. Just killing him is not a moral statement.

Show nested quote +

a code of right and wrong is obviously different to each person but they are similar, or quite similar when you compare us to strange creatures and inanimate objects. And the fact that i can tell that humans have similar morals does bring objectivity to the argument.


No it does not. As I mentioned in the post literally above you, even if everyone had the exact same morals, it still would not be a good argument for objective morality. I can use an easier example for you. If you objectively believe that slavery is wrong, then you cannot base that on the fact that most people today believe that slavery is wrong. You have to make a different argument since thousands of years ago the majority of the human population thought slavery was not wrong.

This is a fallacy called argumentum ad populum, or I generally know it as argument by consensus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum


there is no difference with morality in the entire world believing slavery is right and and no one believing it right though, because morality isn't actually real it's just an invention by nature to keep people from doing stupid shit.
flowSthead
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
1065 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-05-14 10:40:08
May 14 2011 10:38 GMT
#712
On May 14 2011 19:24 drwiggles wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 14 2011 18:34 flowSthead wrote:
You are conflating two different definitions of objective. Thinking objectively is when you try to think rationally, as in without emotion or prejudice. Objective morality has to do with morals that exist regardless of time or circumstance.

"In other words, being objective means you can see right and wrong, but not necessarily that you will always act accordingly" What it really means is that you can make a rational judgement. Seeing "right and wrong" assumes that a right and wrong exists. When people like myself say that they believe in subjective morality, it is because we do not believe that right and wrong exist, just that they are human made concepts.


+ Show Spoiler +
I think you quoted me for being wrong.. and than said some of what I said. Anyway..

Rationality =/= objectivity. Rationality is a subjective view point. eg. "Spraying battery acid on those girls seemed like the rational thing to do because I don't believe girls should go to school here in Afghanistan."

That is what a Al-Qaeda soldier would say to himself and he would be 'right' in terms of his subjective view point.

But the rest of the world can look at that (even subjectively) and determine that his actions were obviously immoral. Except the other Al-Qaeda soldiers who will look at his action behind their subjective view points and see what he did as right.

So as you can see, people thinking subjectively (in terms of their feelings, personal views towards girls studying) can be either right or wrong when it comes to spraying school girls with battery acid. But objectively, you can say: "You shouldn't hurt other people", and therefore spraying girls with battery acid will be called definitely an immoral action.

You can even measure that soldiers actions effect on society and find that yes, indeed that society would be better off if girls were free to go to school without fear. This idea of a measurement and an accurate one at that, is objectivity. The idea that right and wrong exist, and just have to be found..

I do agree that you believe that right and wrong are human made concepts. If aliens looked at two people spraying battery acid on each other they wouldn't know whether it was an act of evil, or just our culture. But despite this, I know that right and wrong exist, independently of what we all think, and that even though an outside observer doesn't know right or wrong for us humans, these ideas can be determined and measured by seeing the effects on the girls, and the effects on society because of those actions. So that even aliens can determine the morality of an action by being objective and viewing that action's results and consequences.

Anyway it's late. The topic asked "Is morality subjective or objective". I say its objective because although it exists subjectively to everyone, these subjective thinkers can be either right or wrong. By looking at an action objectively and finding out whether it was good or bad, moral or immoral, by seeing its consequences over time, or by trying to accurately predict them in the first place, we can find a true answer for right or wrong that is independent of what we thought, felt, believed at that time.


No, see again you are using words differently from what their definitions are within the context of a philosophical discussion. You cannot objectively say "You shouldn't hurt other people" unless you have already decided that that is an objective moral standpoint. I am saying that that statement is not self evident. Even the sentence "people thinking subjectively...can either be right or wrong" already assumes an objective morality. I can understand your viewpoint, but you are not understanding mine.

I can approach this topic from an objective viewpoint, the way you are, and discuss what that objective morality might entail. But to approach the topic from a subjective viewpoint you cannot say statements like "can be right or wrong" because they do not make sense subjectively.

Measuring as well has nothing to do with right and wrong, because measurements are imperfect. If I were to cut off your arm while cutting off my own finger, you would assume that one of us has more pain than the other. I make no assumptions. Perhaps our pain is equal. Pain between two people is not something is measurable both because the sensory experience is not easily communicable, and because language is an imperfect communication tool. Even figuring out how much nerve damage was done would not answer the questions since different brains interpret nerve damage in different ways. Do you see why the physical world is a poor measurement for even something as simple as the amount of harm on a persons body? It would be even more difficult to extrapolate on a society, or on the whole human race.

For that matter, the entire idea of objectively measuring morality is a little silly to me. It is the reason I cannot take anything Sam Harris says seriously. Morality is not a science. It is a philosophy. It involves making logical, rational arguments, not experiments with theses. You cannot prove that murder is wrong, you have to establish it.

As an example, you can make an argument from God, which is a fairly easy and solid argument for objective morality. You could make a Kantian argument that we should not use people as means because it is logically inconsistent. That argument is more difficult and I and others have problems with it, but it is at least an argument.

Just to point out that you yourself are not exempt from this, if you read your own words back:
But despite this, I know that right and wrong exist, independently of what we all think

How can you know something independently of yourself?
"You can be creative but I will crush it under the iron fist of my conservative play." - Liquid`Tyler █ MVP ■ MC ■ Boxer ■ Grubby █
Fyodor
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
Canada971 Posts
May 14 2011 11:00 GMT
#713
who are you flowSthead and why are you right about everything?
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
Cyba
Profile Joined June 2010
Romania221 Posts
May 14 2011 11:11 GMT
#714
Morality is a bit like common sense, everybody has his own slight notion of it, however the true common point is where the notions converge. And they do converge in pretty much every culture exept for slight details and ways of punishing wrong doing.

Even though the essence of it will most likely turn out to be something very primitive around the lines if you do damage to something/some1 you'll pay for it one way or another.

Objective.
I'm not evil, I'm just good lookin
Acritter
Profile Joined August 2010
Syria7637 Posts
May 14 2011 11:11 GMT
#715
Subjective, but with a few premises set down it can become very objective. However, given cultural differences, people never agree on (all) the premises.
dont let your memes be dreams - konydora, motivational speaker | not actually living in syria
Probe1
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States17920 Posts
May 14 2011 11:46 GMT
#716
I know at this point its been beaten to death but morality will always be a subjective subject. Morality is just an opinion of the times, by society, by the individual. Morality changes with each millennium, century, generation.. the moral fiber of an act can change bi weekly. I can't see how morality would ever be an objective state without morality being an eternal state which, religious beliefs aside- is hilarious.

The idea that we humans, in an intelligent civilization for a mere 100 centuries, grasped a notion that always has been and always will be? That is the only objective state I accept.

I'm sorry I'm very tired and realized I'm making an argument for the silliness behind the infinite shades of subjectivity while holding only pure objective reasoning to one level. At this rate only voids will be objective and even then most will be posers with a few stray quarks hanging out in them.



Morality is just a word. Morals are just the feel good views of the times. Picking your nose is okay when you're 4 but not 40. Murdering your neighbor for eating your food was alright in 400 bce but now its rather frowned upon.
우정호 KT_VIOLET 1988 - 2012 While we are postponing, life speeds by
Cyba
Profile Joined June 2010
Romania221 Posts
May 14 2011 14:48 GMT
#717
I'd say it can be treated the same as a mathematical function, or say a neural network.

Get a set of input situations/actions, a set of outputs which is the result of those situations/actions.
Depending on the results of certain actions you gage if their good or bad. Let's take revenge killings, asume we wouldn't know the result, after it happens you see that the revenge keeps going from both sides forever, clearly it's a bad thing and should not be allowed.

This way after everything happens once, you start being able to tell what can or can't be done by looking at the past and seeing the repercusions that result.

The function changes while society changes but it will always keep improving asuming you don't forget what you learned before. Some backwards societies will have a less powerfull function, that doesn't mean their morality is different in their culture, it just means their behind in the evolution process of it.
I'm not evil, I'm just good lookin
Akta
Profile Joined February 2011
447 Posts
May 14 2011 14:58 GMT
#718
Am I the only one that questioned the question?
Is baby powder subjective or objective? Tall or short? Good or evil?

Our brains generally have a strong preference for black or white thinking. Formulating questions like these to give the impression that there are two possible answers stimulates this weakness. If that is what you want to achieve that's fine but I don't think that was the purpose of the thread.

Skimming through 20-40 posts I only see people discussing what objectivity, subjectivity and morality is.
So perhaps the topic should be about what morality is and the meaning of subjective and objective - because that is what people appear to be discussing.
Cyba
Profile Joined June 2010
Romania221 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-05-14 18:14:22
May 14 2011 18:13 GMT
#719

Am I the only one that questioned the question?
Is baby powder subjective or objective? Tall or short? Good or evil?

Our brains generally have a strong preference for black or white thinking. Formulating questions like these to give the impression that there are two possible answers stimulates this weakness. If that is what you want to achieve that's fine but I don't think that was the purpose of the thread.

Skimming through 20-40 posts I only see people discussing what objectivity, subjectivity and morality is.
So perhaps the topic should be about what morality is and the meaning of subjective and objective - because that is what people appear to be discussing.


A fair point, personally i asumed it was crappy wording for is morality the same everywhere or not.
I'm not evil, I'm just good lookin
Fighter
Profile Joined August 2010
Korea (South)1531 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-05-14 19:35:13
May 14 2011 19:33 GMT
#720
It kind of drives me crazy to even participate in conversations like this because the depth of philosophical literature is SO deep, and most people aren't even slightly familiar with it.

I mean, just look at this wiki page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaethics

The question of subjective/objective morals is still something that's very much OPEN, even among the leading thinkers, so how productive do you think a forum debate will be, especially when, like I said, probably no one here has familiarize themselves with contemporary philosophical discussion.

I mean, not to discourage you guys from asking these questions... most people don't even know where to go to LOOK for answers. But if you REALLY want to look into these questions, you have to read the literature.

For an especially well developed view of morality as being "objective" you might look to Cornell Realism ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornell_realism ). The most "subjective" argument I can think of is Mackie's Error theory ( http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-anti-realism/moral-error-theory.html ) though it's not taken very seriously in contemporary metaethics. Then on the other hand you have theories like Blackburn's Quasi-realism, which holds that ethical statements CAN be appropriately described as true or false, despite the fact that such claims actually fail to correspond to objectively existing moral facts ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-realism ). Is that an "objective" account or a "subjective" account?
For Aiur???
Prev 1 34 35 36 37 38 40 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 1d 3h
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
WinterStarcraft631
Nina 247
ProTech74
StarCraft: Brood War
Leta 593
soO 87
Noble 59
Backho 54
Shinee 39
NotJumperer 10
Mind 9
Dota 2
XcaliburYe52
League of Legends
JimRising 797
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K1363
Super Smash Bros
amsayoshi75
Other Games
summit1g11084
shahzam1252
NeuroSwarm92
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick2038
BasetradeTV56
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 17 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH304
• davetesta9
• Kozan
• sooper7s
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• Migwel
• intothetv
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• IndyKCrew
StarCraft: Brood War
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• lizZardDota273
League of Legends
• Rush2033
• Stunt509
• HappyZerGling103
Other Games
• WagamamaTV172
Upcoming Events
Esports World Cup
1d 3h
ByuN vs Astrea
Lambo vs HeRoMaRinE
Clem vs TBD
Solar vs Zoun
SHIN vs Reynor
Maru vs TriGGeR
herO vs Lancer
Cure vs ShoWTimE
Esports World Cup
2 days
Esports World Cup
3 days
Esports World Cup
4 days
CranKy Ducklings
5 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
5 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
5 days
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
FEL
6 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
6 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
6 days
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Xiamen Invitational
Championship of Russia 2025
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
CC Div. A S7
Underdog Cup #2
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
HCC Europe
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.