| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Suisen
256 Posts
All this thread I have been correction people's posts, including yours, explaining views, hammering down the same essential points, politely. And now you say this? No. Subjective and objective morality are two different positions to take. It's not a debate of semantics. Just because people vote the wrong way because they don't understand doesn't mean it is. In about 90% of your posts you are an idiot. User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
xAPOCALYPSEx
1418 Posts
I believe that morality is objective. If it was subjective, then in a sense, morality wouldn't really exist. It would just be someone's own code of honor, per se. | ||
|
Suisen
256 Posts
VIB tries to take the fun out of most threads. Only thing I can do about it is call him out on it. | ||
|
zemiron
United States481 Posts
Even if morality isn't objective, it definitely doesn't mean that it's totally arbitrary or subjective. We can have a conversation about what makes a good car. There may not be an objectively binding answer to what makes a good car, but if someone said that a good car was a car that got terrible gas mileage and barely runs, you could confidently and correctly say that they are wrong. We can do this with morality without having an objective source for morality. | ||
|
zemiron
United States481 Posts
| ||
|
Canadium
Canada171 Posts
There is a moral framework that is objective. Right/wrong good/bad are inherent human attributes. | ||
|
LF9
United States537 Posts
| ||
|
raviy
Australia207 Posts
On May 16 2011 04:39 phyvo wrote: The irony of your post is making my head explode. Look, the basic problem of subjective morals is that you can't say killing someone is wrong so long as the actor is acting according to his/her personal morals. A logical corollary is that you can't say that having objective morals and trying to spread them across the world is wrong for the same reason. This is why subjective morality has no teeth. You can kill me for whatever reason you personally want, but you can't scream "it's not right! it's not moral" at me if I kill you, let alone if I choose to spread my particular brand of morals to the rest of the world. You understand that my saying morals are subjective does not mean that I don't have my own moral system, yes? So I fail to see the irony. If someone does an act, such as killing another person, that may be against my moral system, but be kosher with their own. I do not necessarily view that as acceptable. Different societies can have different interpretations of what is moral, and one society exporting their morals across the world is alarming. I don't understand how you can equate "morals are subjective" with "everything anyone does is okay as long as it's okay with them". Morality is subjective. If an entire society feels that a man killing another person as a display of strength is an acceptable reason, then the world should not be entitled to impose their view of morality on that society and seek the man's arrest. Although that brings up the question of how we define societies, but that's another question for another day. | ||
|
lOvOlUNiMEDiA
United States643 Posts
On May 16 2011 08:11 VIB wrote: So you FINALLY understand you're only arguing semantics? I talk about the "morality" that I think is what how most people define the word. If you come and say "yea that would be subjective, but I think morality is something else". Then there's nothing to talk about. We're comparing apples to oranges and I'm not gonna argue which definition of the word is "right" or which is "wrong". Words are just words, no definition is wrong. But I'm not gonna waste time discussing each individual's personal different definition of each word. If you like your own meaning of what "morals" is. Then it's fine. But please do understand that you're not arguing morality. In 90% of your posts you're arguing semantics, Suisen. VIB, above you wrote " I talk about the "morality" that I think is what how most people define the word." What is the definition you refer to here? | ||
|
Fyodor
Canada971 Posts
On May 16 2011 09:12 zemiron wrote: Moral rules don't have to be absolute to be objective. Each individual situation can have an objectively correct answer. To find the objectively correct answer to each moral situation, one needs to use logical and rational discovery based on evidence. Even if morality isn't objective, it definitely doesn't mean that it's totally arbitrary or subjective. We can have a conversation about what makes a good car. There may not be an objectively binding answer to what makes a good car, but if someone said that a good car was a car that got terrible gas mileage and barely runs, you could confidently and correctly say that they are wrong. We can do this with morality without having an objective source for morality. Actually, you can't find correct answers to moral situations like that. It may sound right if you have a scientific background but you have no idea how alien this sounds to someone with a proper philosophy background. Completely nonsensical. This is due to the simple fact that you have to decide something or put your foot down somewhere. You have to decide if what you want is "well-being" like Harris mentioned. If freedom is what you want. Anyways, there's this decision to be made and it's nothing like science. | ||
|
bellweather
United States404 Posts
On May 16 2011 12:39 LF9 wrote: I clicked the wrong button on the vote, but I have and always will believe that morality is ENTIRELY subjective in every way. That is why legislating morals is a bad thing, i.e. prohibition of drugs, gay marriage, etc. Took a great big leap there didn't ya? First of all "legislating morals" is completely ambiguous, so that'll slide until you define it. Prohibition of certain drugs though, absolutely should be "legislated" on regardless of what an individual's stance on the issue is. Drug trade is harmful to the user directly and to others indirectly. People can argue for/against the effectiveness of making drugs illegal as opposed to say using economic devices, but that's a completely argument. The point is the government should absolutely take a stance and a role in the limiting of drug use. | ||
|
Gaspa
Brazil109 Posts
http://edge.org/conversation/a-new-science-of-morality-part-1 There's 8 parts to this conversation on Edge.org. I haven't even seen all of it myself, but the parts I have seen had some amazing food for thought. | ||
|
ildrean
18 Posts
Someone earlier used the example of slavery in the U.S.; when it was morally correct to own slaves, that was because most of the population believed it to be okay. As time progressed, less and less people believed it to be so, and the overall opinion changed. Eventually, the collective, subjective morals of the population created the feeling of objective opposition to slavery that we see today. | ||
|
levelping
Singapore759 Posts
On May 16 2011 12:39 LF9 wrote: I clicked the wrong button on the vote, but I have and always will believe that morality is ENTIRELY subjective in every way. That is why legislating morals is a bad thing, i.e. prohibition of drugs, gay marriage, etc. But see... many other laws are premised on certain moral positions. You raise the prohibition of gay marriage, but the entire system of human rights is premised on a liberal moral view point about personal autonomy/liberty. Your argument is not satisfactory because it essentially says that all morality should be subjective when you disagree with it, but objective when it suits your case. | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
I believe it's objective. It's not as convenient for people addicted to a great video game like SC2 to believe that, when we could be using our free time to have a better impact on the world, especially when moral subjectivity has been so popular for such a long time. There are immutable natural laws that govern the universe. We don't completely understand them yet, but the laws are there, and are the framework of our existence. It is not unreasonable, then, to believe that their are immutable laws that govern our behavior towards each other, and that a supreme person who has completed his journey of learning those laws and applying them to who he is dictates them to other people (his kids) who are still at the beginning of that journey. I believe that God abides by these eternal laws of nature and his obedience to them is His source of power, wisdom, and authority. Another point to consider is that if morality is, in fact, objective, no matter how much it is not believed to be, it still is objective and founded on the unchangeable laws of the universe. | ||
|
raviy
Australia207 Posts
On May 16 2011 14:33 0neder wrote: Another point to consider is that if morality is, in fact, objective, no matter how much it is not believed to be, it still is objective and founded on the unchangeable laws of the universe. "if morality is... objective, ... it still is objective" ... care to expand and provide concrete rationale to your opinion? | ||
|
levelping
Singapore759 Posts
On May 16 2011 14:44 raviy wrote: "if morality is... objective, ... it still is objective" ... care to expand and provide concrete rationale to your opinion? This isn't very difficult to understand.... replace morality with "the sun rises in the east." No matter how much you think that the sun comes up from underneath your bed, the sun objectively still rises in the east. | ||
|
Traveler
United States451 Posts
On May 16 2011 15:19 levelping wrote: This isn't very difficult to understand.... replace morality with "the sun rises in the east." No matter how much you think that the sun comes up from underneath your bed, the sun objectively still rises in the east. Except for the fact that the sun does that despite whatever humanity thinks. We can only observe that. Morality on the other hand is only put into practice by humans, and individuals have different conceptions of it. In order for morality to be objective it needs to be self-enforcing somehow. | ||
|
flowSthead
1065 Posts
On May 16 2011 14:33 0neder wrote: One thing's for sure, if morality is objective, then this poll is irrelevant. =) I believe it's objective. It's not as convenient for people addicted to a great video game like SC2 to believe that, when we could be using our free time to have a better impact on the world, especially when moral subjectivity has been so popular for such a long time. There are immutable natural laws that govern the universe. We don't completely understand them yet, but the laws are there, and are the framework of our existence. It is not unreasonable, then, to believe that their are immutable laws that govern our behavior towards each other, and that a supreme person who has completed his journey of learning those laws and applying them to who he is dictates them to other people (his kids) who are still at the beginning of that journey. I believe that God abides by these eternal laws of nature and his obedience to them is His source of power, wisdom, and authority. Another point to consider is that if morality is, in fact, objective, no matter how much it is not believed to be, it still is objective and founded on the unchangeable laws of the universe. Actually, that is not something you can assume, and it would be unreasonable to assume that because there are universal physical laws there are universal moral laws. You can make an argument that universal moral laws exist, and yours comes from God, but you cannot say that because universal physical laws exist, that therefore universal moral laws exist because the physical has nothing to do with the moral. I think I should also point out at this point that just because people take a pragmatic approach and follow the legal and moral guidelines of a society, does not mean that morality is objective. It just means that people are relatively rational compared to animals. I should also note that biological and genetic instincts and predispositions are not an effective argument for morality. I will use a somewhat controversial example to make my point. Biologically speaking, homosexuality is an ineffective mutation. The goal of the human race and individual humans is propagation, so sex between a male and a female is necessary. This also means that the majority of people will necessarily be heterosexual if the human race is to survive, and that biologically heterosexuals will have a greater chance to continue to create more heterosexuals (assuming it is a genetic predisposition). Now, mutations will always come and create some homosexuals, but not enough to change them into the majority. So what does this mean? This means that if you take the biological and genetic as a basis for morality, then every single genetic majority suddenly becomes morally right. Being straight, brown or black haired, asian, and right handed is now a moral right. Being gay, blonde, blue eyed, left handed, albino, is now a moral wrong. Now some of you may look at this and say that sexual preference is not comparable to hair color in terms of morality. But if genetics and biology are your basis for argument, then they absolutely become part of morality, since you are favoring genetic predisposition as your argument for what objective morals are. This is absolutely a credible position to take, despite my saying it is not an effective argument for morality up above. The reason I said it was not effective, is because I imagine that most people would find this stance uncomfortable. Now I happen to believe in subjective morality, but if this genetic objective morality is you stance, the fine. We have nothing to talk about since we have different, unalterable views on morality. Someone earlier used the example of slavery in the U.S.; when it was morally correct to own slaves, that was because most of the population believed it to be okay. As time progressed, less and less people believed it to be so, and the overall opinion changed. Eventually, the collective, subjective morals of the population created the feeling of objective opposition to slavery that we see today. This is a misuse of the word objective. Changing attitudes do not correlate to objectivity. One could make the argument that the majority of people still favor slavery, but that they are too afraid to speak up and so constantly believe they are in the minority. It would be impossible to prove, but because that example can even be made, it basically negates the so called objectivity of your stance. Never mind that objective morality is not a time based situation. You cannot philosophically make the statement that objective morality changes over the time. It is a contradiction; objective morality does not change. Moral subjectivity and the tolerance are scary philosophical viewpoints to tout because it feels like the only logical conclusion is anarchy :/ No, the only logical conclusion is not anarchy, the same way that the only logical conclusion of Christianity is not a theocracy. I can believe in subjective morality while maintaining a pragmatic view of the world and taking part in the collective morality of society. I think it should be pretty obvious for example, that nations do not have one morality. The fact that there are drug debates, abortion debates, debates about war, the death penalty, etc. should point out that even though legally there is one "right" or "wrong", the people of the world do not hold to that at all. Just as an example, I can believe that killing someone is not wrong, but that does not mean that I will go on a killing spree. Maintaining my freedom is important to me, and being accepted by society is also important in achieving whatever goals or dreams I have. This means that I will most likely never kill someone in my life. Does it mean that I am more likely to kill someone that those people who believe that murder is always wrong? I do not know. How can you argue something like that with 0 statistical proof? I should also point out that just because I believe that killing someone is not wrong, does not mean that I also believe that killing someone is right. I could just view the act of killing in a neutral way, which gives me no inherent incentive to go around murdering citizens. This is something that objective viewpoints seem to have difficulty grasping. My lack of consensus with you on your morals does not correlate to my taking the exact opposite morals. If I do not agree that being gay is wrong, it does not mean I will suddenly turn everyone gay. Very often there are not black and white choices in moral questions. Another example, full abortion and 0 abortion are not the only choices. There is no threat in the idea of subjective morality. It is just a different view of the universe ^_^. | ||
|
iloveav
Poland1482 Posts
Ofc we could discuss about where morals come from, like sociaty, god, childhood, etc. But it wont change the fact we decide if we want to follow it, and that choice comes to us many many times a day. | ||
| ||
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
PiG Sty Festival
PiGosaur Cup
Replay Cast
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
The PondCast
Replay Cast
CranKy Ducklings
Sparkling Tuna Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
