|
On July 28 2013 07:05 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 07:03 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:02 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 06:57 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:49 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 06:41 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:39 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 06:34 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:27 ZenithM wrote:You misunderstood my post. My question was "what can WE do?, rather than "WHAT can we do?". It's not our country, we don't have any control on legislation and education. So it is actually harder to grasp than you seem to think. In fact, I'll quote Mothra's informative link: There is nothing more difficult than persuading people to give up long-held cultural practices, especially those bound up in taboo subjects like sex. Fine, let me rephrase. Put external pressure on said government to provide legislation and education on the subject. Though, I don't really get your point, as you're constantly trying to say we should do nothing, simply because it's so damn hard to do anything. Guess we shouldn't have gone to the moon then... Lol, I never said that actually, re-read my posts if you want. My point is basically this one: On July 28 2013 02:42 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 02:42 docvoc wrote:On July 28 2013 02:23 ZenithM wrote:
[quote]
Assuming that every human being can use "Rational judgement" to come up with the same conclusion is flawed anyway. In those countries, they're not using the same premises as you so they won't get to the same conclusion (that "FGM is bad").
For example, over there religious dogma is much more powerful than in western countries and can be the basis for a "reasoned" argument ("God wants A, hence B" is perfectly fine), which is kind of inconceivable for you.
So I agree with xMZ that in the end it comes down to a power struggle between cultures. If you want your "right thing" to prevail, fight and impose it on others.
And btw, there isn't really anything to discuss or debate in this thread, I'm sure nobody here actually support the practice :D. Good OP nonetheless, informative at least. The fact here is that there is no real "actual right." This is all based on perception. Zenith, you are very right to point out cultural differences, I wasn't going to comment in this thread, but I have to quote your comment because of how on point it is. The U.N. exists in a Western way, whereas these countries don't. The differences because of this make us think the action is barbaric, which isn't the case for a lot of the people taking part in it. The process is slowly dying, for various reasons, and while I don't agree with it, we as westerners have no place telling other people that what they are doing is "objectively bad" even if we find the process detestable. True. And yet it must not prevent us from intervening if we think it's not right. It just won't be for the sake of doing the "objective right thing", that would be naive to think that way :D So, then you're a proponent of cultural imperialism? Instead of believing in moral realism? Either way, you're saying you think it should not hold us back to intervene. What then is your suggestion WE should do to intervene? Well, I don't know, haha (remember, "what now?" :D) but at least I'm aware of it. I just think that a lot of posters here don't know either. I posted here because I just didn't like when someone talked about science, reason and objectivity when this issue is really about culture, morality and ethics. Maybe I'm just arguing semantics here but I don't even think the sentence "This is objectively right/wrong" makes sense. That was me, among others maybe. This issue is about anything but culture. Culture has no say in matters when innocent lifes are being squashed. Science however shows that FGM is useless, and has harrowing effects on the women involved. That makes it objectively wrong. It makes it subjectively wrong from any rational perspective, but nothing is objectively wrong. Right and wrong are subjective value judgements, it's not right or wrong when a star goes supernova, it's not right or wrong when water evaporates, it simply is. It's not objectively wrong to murder people, but every rational person holds the strong subjective belief that it's wrong so it's safe to say "murder is wrong". Maybe he was just arguing semantics, as he acknowledged, but saying something is "objectively wrong" doesn't actually make sense at all. 1+1=7 is not objectively wrong? That's not a subjective value judgement, that's a mathematical fallacy. 1+1=7 is objectively wrong, of course.
Indeed. Now to make clear that even in life we can objectively say something is wrong: For example a heart surgeon performs a surgery on someone who doesn't have any heart conditions. The surgeon knows this beforehand. Does this make the surgery objectively wrong?
|
On July 28 2013 07:09 cloneThorN wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 07:02 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 06:57 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:49 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 06:41 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:39 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 06:34 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:27 ZenithM wrote:You misunderstood my post. My question was "what can WE do?, rather than "WHAT can we do?". It's not our country, we don't have any control on legislation and education. So it is actually harder to grasp than you seem to think. In fact, I'll quote Mothra's informative link: There is nothing more difficult than persuading people to give up long-held cultural practices, especially those bound up in taboo subjects like sex. Fine, let me rephrase. Put external pressure on said government to provide legislation and education on the subject. Though, I don't really get your point, as you're constantly trying to say we should do nothing, simply because it's so damn hard to do anything. Guess we shouldn't have gone to the moon then... Lol, I never said that actually, re-read my posts if you want. My point is basically this one: On July 28 2013 02:42 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 02:42 docvoc wrote:On July 28 2013 02:23 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 00:25 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Your argument is morally bankrupt, you are advocating the abdication of rational judgement, the thing that makes us better than animals, in favour of ideological passivity. You can bitch all you like about how it's all subjective and the winner decides what is normal and good but it's not true, maybe not everything I believe is right and true and good but I'm damn sure that my belief that you shouldn't cut off the clitoris of girls and sew their vaginas shut isn't one of them. Sure enough to impose my beliefs on others who disagree. People disagree all the time but that doesn't mean that there aren't right answers, it just means some people are dumb. What's worse than the dumb people though are people like you who have so little conviction that they'd rather see evil go on in front of them than take a stance, at least the dumb people don't know they're dumb, you claim to look at all the evidence and yet can't come to a conclusion. Assuming that every human being can use "Rational judgement" to come up with the same conclusion is flawed anyway. In those countries, they're not using the same premises as you so they won't get to the same conclusion (that "FGM is bad"). For example, over there religious dogma is much more powerful than in western countries and can be the basis for a "reasoned" argument ("God wants A, hence B" is perfectly fine), which is kind of inconceivable for you. So I agree with xMZ that in the end it comes down to a power struggle between cultures. If you want your "right thing" to prevail, fight and impose it on others. And btw, there isn't really anything to discuss or debate in this thread, I'm sure nobody here actually support the practice :D. Good OP nonetheless, informative at least. The fact here is that there is no real "actual right." This is all based on perception. Zenith, you are very right to point out cultural differences, I wasn't going to comment in this thread, but I have to quote your comment because of how on point it is. The U.N. exists in a Western way, whereas these countries don't. The differences because of this make us think the action is barbaric, which isn't the case for a lot of the people taking part in it. The process is slowly dying, for various reasons, and while I don't agree with it, we as westerners have no place telling other people that what they are doing is "objectively bad" even if we find the process detestable. True. And yet it must not prevent us from intervening if we think it's not right. It just won't be for the sake of doing the "objective right thing", that would be naive to think that way :D So, then you're a proponent of cultural imperialism? Instead of believing in moral realism? Either way, you're saying you think it should not hold us back to intervene. What then is your suggestion WE should do to intervene? Well, I don't know, haha (remember, "what now?" :D) but at least I'm aware of it. I just think that a lot of posters here don't know either. I posted here because I just didn't like when someone talked about science, reason and objectivity when this issue is really about culture, morality and ethics. Maybe I'm just arguing semantics here but I don't even think the sentence "This is objectively right/wrong" makes sense. That was me, among others maybe. This issue is about anything but culture. Culture has no say in matters when innocent lifes are being squashed. Science however shows that FGM is useless, and has harrowing effects on the women involved. That makes it objectively wrong. It makes it subjectively wrong from any rational perspective, but nothing is objectively wrong. Right and wrong are subjective value judgements, it's not right or wrong when a star goes supernova, it's not right or wrong when water evaporates, it simply is. It's not objectively wrong to murder people, but every rational person holds the strong subjective belief that it's wrong so it's safe to say "murder is wrong". Maybe he was just arguing semantics, as he acknowledged, but saying something is "objectively wrong" doesn't actually make sense at all. You lost this debate the moment you said that. That is THE most ignorant thing i have heard anyone say since 3rd grade. I'm guessing you went to school at some point. At exams and tests, did you just give them a paper saying "No answer is right or wrong, it's subjetive!" ?! Theres other examples, but this one should be fool proof enough to make you understand why you are wrong.
It is your fault for reading the sentence out of the morality context being discussed here.
|
On July 28 2013 07:17 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 07:09 cloneThorN wrote:On July 28 2013 07:02 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 06:57 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:49 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 06:41 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:39 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 06:34 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:27 ZenithM wrote:You misunderstood my post. My question was "what can WE do?, rather than "WHAT can we do?". It's not our country, we don't have any control on legislation and education. So it is actually harder to grasp than you seem to think. In fact, I'll quote Mothra's informative link: There is nothing more difficult than persuading people to give up long-held cultural practices, especially those bound up in taboo subjects like sex. Fine, let me rephrase. Put external pressure on said government to provide legislation and education on the subject. Though, I don't really get your point, as you're constantly trying to say we should do nothing, simply because it's so damn hard to do anything. Guess we shouldn't have gone to the moon then... Lol, I never said that actually, re-read my posts if you want. My point is basically this one: On July 28 2013 02:42 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 02:42 docvoc wrote:On July 28 2013 02:23 ZenithM wrote:
[quote]
Assuming that every human being can use "Rational judgement" to come up with the same conclusion is flawed anyway. In those countries, they're not using the same premises as you so they won't get to the same conclusion (that "FGM is bad").
For example, over there religious dogma is much more powerful than in western countries and can be the basis for a "reasoned" argument ("God wants A, hence B" is perfectly fine), which is kind of inconceivable for you.
So I agree with xMZ that in the end it comes down to a power struggle between cultures. If you want your "right thing" to prevail, fight and impose it on others.
And btw, there isn't really anything to discuss or debate in this thread, I'm sure nobody here actually support the practice :D. Good OP nonetheless, informative at least. The fact here is that there is no real "actual right." This is all based on perception. Zenith, you are very right to point out cultural differences, I wasn't going to comment in this thread, but I have to quote your comment because of how on point it is. The U.N. exists in a Western way, whereas these countries don't. The differences because of this make us think the action is barbaric, which isn't the case for a lot of the people taking part in it. The process is slowly dying, for various reasons, and while I don't agree with it, we as westerners have no place telling other people that what they are doing is "objectively bad" even if we find the process detestable. True. And yet it must not prevent us from intervening if we think it's not right. It just won't be for the sake of doing the "objective right thing", that would be naive to think that way :D So, then you're a proponent of cultural imperialism? Instead of believing in moral realism? Either way, you're saying you think it should not hold us back to intervene. What then is your suggestion WE should do to intervene? Well, I don't know, haha (remember, "what now?" :D) but at least I'm aware of it. I just think that a lot of posters here don't know either. I posted here because I just didn't like when someone talked about science, reason and objectivity when this issue is really about culture, morality and ethics. Maybe I'm just arguing semantics here but I don't even think the sentence "This is objectively right/wrong" makes sense. That was me, among others maybe. This issue is about anything but culture. Culture has no say in matters when innocent lifes are being squashed. Science however shows that FGM is useless, and has harrowing effects on the women involved. That makes it objectively wrong. It makes it subjectively wrong from any rational perspective, but nothing is objectively wrong. Right and wrong are subjective value judgements, it's not right or wrong when a star goes supernova, it's not right or wrong when water evaporates, it simply is. It's not objectively wrong to murder people, but every rational person holds the strong subjective belief that it's wrong so it's safe to say "murder is wrong". Maybe he was just arguing semantics, as he acknowledged, but saying something is "objectively wrong" doesn't actually make sense at all. You lost this debate the moment you said that. That is THE most ignorant thing i have heard anyone say since 3rd grade. I'm guessing you went to school at some point. At exams and tests, did you just give them a paper saying "No answer is right or wrong, it's subjetive!" ?! Theres other examples, but this one should be fool proof enough to make you understand why you are wrong. It is your fault for reading the sentence out of the morality context being discussed here.
See my previous post(the last on last page) as to why theres no difference.
|
On July 28 2013 07:16 Shival wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 07:05 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 07:03 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:02 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 06:57 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:49 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 06:41 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:39 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 06:34 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:27 ZenithM wrote:
You misunderstood my post. My question was "what can WE do?, rather than "WHAT can we do?". It's not our country, we don't have any control on legislation and education. So it is actually harder to grasp than you seem to think. In fact, I'll quote Mothra's informative link: [quote] Fine, let me rephrase. Put external pressure on said government to provide legislation and education on the subject. Though, I don't really get your point, as you're constantly trying to say we should do nothing, simply because it's so damn hard to do anything. Guess we shouldn't have gone to the moon then... Lol, I never said that actually, re-read my posts if you want. My point is basically this one: On July 28 2013 02:42 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 02:42 docvoc wrote:
[quote]
The fact here is that there is no real "actual right." This is all based on perception. Zenith, you are very right to point out cultural differences, I wasn't going to comment in this thread, but I have to quote your comment because of how on point it is. The U.N. exists in a Western way, whereas these countries don't. The differences because of this make us think the action is barbaric, which isn't the case for a lot of the people taking part in it. The process is slowly dying, for various reasons, and while I don't agree with it, we as westerners have no place telling other people that what they are doing is "objectively bad" even if we find the process detestable. True. And yet it must not prevent us from intervening if we think it's not right. It just won't be for the sake of doing the "objective right thing", that would be naive to think that way :D So, then you're a proponent of cultural imperialism? Instead of believing in moral realism? Either way, you're saying you think it should not hold us back to intervene. What then is your suggestion WE should do to intervene? Well, I don't know, haha (remember, "what now?" :D) but at least I'm aware of it. I just think that a lot of posters here don't know either. I posted here because I just didn't like when someone talked about science, reason and objectivity when this issue is really about culture, morality and ethics. Maybe I'm just arguing semantics here but I don't even think the sentence "This is objectively right/wrong" makes sense. That was me, among others maybe. This issue is about anything but culture. Culture has no say in matters when innocent lifes are being squashed. Science however shows that FGM is useless, and has harrowing effects on the women involved. That makes it objectively wrong. It makes it subjectively wrong from any rational perspective, but nothing is objectively wrong. Right and wrong are subjective value judgements, it's not right or wrong when a star goes supernova, it's not right or wrong when water evaporates, it simply is. It's not objectively wrong to murder people, but every rational person holds the strong subjective belief that it's wrong so it's safe to say "murder is wrong". Maybe he was just arguing semantics, as he acknowledged, but saying something is "objectively wrong" doesn't actually make sense at all. 1+1=7 is not objectively wrong? That's not a subjective value judgement, that's a mathematical fallacy. 1+1=7 is objectively wrong, of course. Indeed. Now to make clear that even in life we can objectively say something is wrong: For example a heart surgeon performs a surgery on someone who doesn't have any heart conditions. The surgeon knows this beforehand. Does this make the surgery objectively wrong?
...No? :D
It's pretty dumb, but it's not wrong, unless the surgeon means to kill the guy during the process or something :D
If I try to go to work walking on my hands, it's dumb, but it's not wrong. Nor right, mind you. There are a lot of things in this world that are neither right nor wrong. Humans breathe, for example. Well, it's not right, and it's not wrong, that's just the way things are.
|
On July 28 2013 07:16 cloneThorN wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 07:13 Crushinator wrote:On July 28 2013 07:09 cloneThorN wrote:On July 28 2013 07:02 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 06:57 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:49 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 06:41 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:39 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 06:34 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:27 ZenithM wrote:
You misunderstood my post. My question was "what can WE do?, rather than "WHAT can we do?". It's not our country, we don't have any control on legislation and education. So it is actually harder to grasp than you seem to think. In fact, I'll quote Mothra's informative link: [quote] Fine, let me rephrase. Put external pressure on said government to provide legislation and education on the subject. Though, I don't really get your point, as you're constantly trying to say we should do nothing, simply because it's so damn hard to do anything. Guess we shouldn't have gone to the moon then... Lol, I never said that actually, re-read my posts if you want. My point is basically this one: On July 28 2013 02:42 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 02:42 docvoc wrote:
[quote]
The fact here is that there is no real "actual right." This is all based on perception. Zenith, you are very right to point out cultural differences, I wasn't going to comment in this thread, but I have to quote your comment because of how on point it is. The U.N. exists in a Western way, whereas these countries don't. The differences because of this make us think the action is barbaric, which isn't the case for a lot of the people taking part in it. The process is slowly dying, for various reasons, and while I don't agree with it, we as westerners have no place telling other people that what they are doing is "objectively bad" even if we find the process detestable. True. And yet it must not prevent us from intervening if we think it's not right. It just won't be for the sake of doing the "objective right thing", that would be naive to think that way :D So, then you're a proponent of cultural imperialism? Instead of believing in moral realism? Either way, you're saying you think it should not hold us back to intervene. What then is your suggestion WE should do to intervene? Well, I don't know, haha (remember, "what now?" :D) but at least I'm aware of it. I just think that a lot of posters here don't know either. I posted here because I just didn't like when someone talked about science, reason and objectivity when this issue is really about culture, morality and ethics. Maybe I'm just arguing semantics here but I don't even think the sentence "This is objectively right/wrong" makes sense. That was me, among others maybe. This issue is about anything but culture. Culture has no say in matters when innocent lifes are being squashed. Science however shows that FGM is useless, and has harrowing effects on the women involved. That makes it objectively wrong. It makes it subjectively wrong from any rational perspective, but nothing is objectively wrong. Right and wrong are subjective value judgements, it's not right or wrong when a star goes supernova, it's not right or wrong when water evaporates, it simply is. It's not objectively wrong to murder people, but every rational person holds the strong subjective belief that it's wrong so it's safe to say "murder is wrong". Maybe he was just arguing semantics, as he acknowledged, but saying something is "objectively wrong" doesn't actually make sense at all. You lost this debate the moment you said that. That is THE most ignorant thing i have heard anyone say since 3rd grade. I'm guessing you went to school at some point. At exams and tests, did you just give them a paper saying "No answer is right or wrong, it's subjetive!" ?! Theres other examples, but this one should be fool proof enough to make you understand why you are wrong. When he uses the word ''wrong'' he is not using it as a synonym to ''incorrect'' but rather as imorally wrong. There is a difference, I suggest you learn it, Theres no difference, YOU are making that difference. If you say something cannot be immorally right or wrong, then there exists no moral, as you have no options to choose from. Everythiing wiill be both right and wrong, which is a paradox ancient lords used alot on uneducated and stupid people. We grew away from that in the age of enlightment.
What the fuck are you even talking about? Are you on drugs or was the school you spoke of earlier just really really bad?
|
On July 28 2013 07:18 cloneThorN wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 07:17 Godwrath wrote:On July 28 2013 07:09 cloneThorN wrote:On July 28 2013 07:02 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 06:57 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:49 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 06:41 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:39 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 06:34 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:27 ZenithM wrote:
You misunderstood my post. My question was "what can WE do?, rather than "WHAT can we do?". It's not our country, we don't have any control on legislation and education. So it is actually harder to grasp than you seem to think. In fact, I'll quote Mothra's informative link: [quote] Fine, let me rephrase. Put external pressure on said government to provide legislation and education on the subject. Though, I don't really get your point, as you're constantly trying to say we should do nothing, simply because it's so damn hard to do anything. Guess we shouldn't have gone to the moon then... Lol, I never said that actually, re-read my posts if you want. My point is basically this one: On July 28 2013 02:42 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 02:42 docvoc wrote:
[quote]
The fact here is that there is no real "actual right." This is all based on perception. Zenith, you are very right to point out cultural differences, I wasn't going to comment in this thread, but I have to quote your comment because of how on point it is. The U.N. exists in a Western way, whereas these countries don't. The differences because of this make us think the action is barbaric, which isn't the case for a lot of the people taking part in it. The process is slowly dying, for various reasons, and while I don't agree with it, we as westerners have no place telling other people that what they are doing is "objectively bad" even if we find the process detestable. True. And yet it must not prevent us from intervening if we think it's not right. It just won't be for the sake of doing the "objective right thing", that would be naive to think that way :D So, then you're a proponent of cultural imperialism? Instead of believing in moral realism? Either way, you're saying you think it should not hold us back to intervene. What then is your suggestion WE should do to intervene? Well, I don't know, haha (remember, "what now?" :D) but at least I'm aware of it. I just think that a lot of posters here don't know either. I posted here because I just didn't like when someone talked about science, reason and objectivity when this issue is really about culture, morality and ethics. Maybe I'm just arguing semantics here but I don't even think the sentence "This is objectively right/wrong" makes sense. That was me, among others maybe. This issue is about anything but culture. Culture has no say in matters when innocent lifes are being squashed. Science however shows that FGM is useless, and has harrowing effects on the women involved. That makes it objectively wrong. It makes it subjectively wrong from any rational perspective, but nothing is objectively wrong. Right and wrong are subjective value judgements, it's not right or wrong when a star goes supernova, it's not right or wrong when water evaporates, it simply is. It's not objectively wrong to murder people, but every rational person holds the strong subjective belief that it's wrong so it's safe to say "murder is wrong". Maybe he was just arguing semantics, as he acknowledged, but saying something is "objectively wrong" doesn't actually make sense at all. You lost this debate the moment you said that. That is THE most ignorant thing i have heard anyone say since 3rd grade. I'm guessing you went to school at some point. At exams and tests, did you just give them a paper saying "No answer is right or wrong, it's subjetive!" ?! Theres other examples, but this one should be fool proof enough to make you understand why you are wrong. It is your fault for reading the sentence out of the morality context being discussed here. See my previous post(the last on last page) as to why theres no difference.
I did, and morality is not a set on stone of rights/wrongs, as it varies from person to cultures, which is basically the point on it being subjective.
|
On July 28 2013 07:19 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 07:16 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:05 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 07:03 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:02 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 06:57 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:49 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 06:41 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:39 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 06:34 Shival wrote:
[quote]
Fine, let me rephrase. Put external pressure on said government to provide legislation and education on the subject.
Though, I don't really get your point, as you're constantly trying to say we should do nothing, simply because it's so damn hard to do anything. Guess we shouldn't have gone to the moon then... Lol, I never said that actually, re-read my posts if you want. My point is basically this one: On July 28 2013 02:42 ZenithM wrote:
[quote]
True. And yet it must not prevent us from intervening if we think it's not right.
It just won't be for the sake of doing the "objective right thing", that would be naive to think that way :D
So, then you're a proponent of cultural imperialism? Instead of believing in moral realism? Either way, you're saying you think it should not hold us back to intervene. What then is your suggestion WE should do to intervene? Well, I don't know, haha (remember, "what now?" :D) but at least I'm aware of it. I just think that a lot of posters here don't know either. I posted here because I just didn't like when someone talked about science, reason and objectivity when this issue is really about culture, morality and ethics. Maybe I'm just arguing semantics here but I don't even think the sentence "This is objectively right/wrong" makes sense. That was me, among others maybe. This issue is about anything but culture. Culture has no say in matters when innocent lifes are being squashed. Science however shows that FGM is useless, and has harrowing effects on the women involved. That makes it objectively wrong. It makes it subjectively wrong from any rational perspective, but nothing is objectively wrong. Right and wrong are subjective value judgements, it's not right or wrong when a star goes supernova, it's not right or wrong when water evaporates, it simply is. It's not objectively wrong to murder people, but every rational person holds the strong subjective belief that it's wrong so it's safe to say "murder is wrong". Maybe he was just arguing semantics, as he acknowledged, but saying something is "objectively wrong" doesn't actually make sense at all. 1+1=7 is not objectively wrong? That's not a subjective value judgement, that's a mathematical fallacy. 1+1=7 is objectively wrong, of course. Indeed. Now to make clear that even in life we can objectively say something is wrong: For example a heart surgeon performs a surgery on someone who doesn't have any heart conditions. The surgeon knows this beforehand. Does this make the surgery objectively wrong? ...No? :D It's pretty dumb, but it's not wrong, unless the surgeon means to kill the guy during the process or something :D If I try to go to work walking on my hands, it's dumb, but it's not wrong.
It's easely wrong.
A: It cost alot of rescourse to perform heart surgery.
B: it delays the surgeon from helping people who desperately needs surgery.
C: It can kill the patient if accidents happen. This is why such surgeries are a last option only thiing.
And i could go on and on.
This is DEFINATLY a wrong thing to do.
|
On July 28 2013 07:16 Shival wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 07:05 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 07:03 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:02 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 06:57 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:49 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 06:41 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:39 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 06:34 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:27 ZenithM wrote:
You misunderstood my post. My question was "what can WE do?, rather than "WHAT can we do?". It's not our country, we don't have any control on legislation and education. So it is actually harder to grasp than you seem to think. In fact, I'll quote Mothra's informative link: [quote] Fine, let me rephrase. Put external pressure on said government to provide legislation and education on the subject. Though, I don't really get your point, as you're constantly trying to say we should do nothing, simply because it's so damn hard to do anything. Guess we shouldn't have gone to the moon then... Lol, I never said that actually, re-read my posts if you want. My point is basically this one: On July 28 2013 02:42 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 02:42 docvoc wrote:
[quote]
The fact here is that there is no real "actual right." This is all based on perception. Zenith, you are very right to point out cultural differences, I wasn't going to comment in this thread, but I have to quote your comment because of how on point it is. The U.N. exists in a Western way, whereas these countries don't. The differences because of this make us think the action is barbaric, which isn't the case for a lot of the people taking part in it. The process is slowly dying, for various reasons, and while I don't agree with it, we as westerners have no place telling other people that what they are doing is "objectively bad" even if we find the process detestable. True. And yet it must not prevent us from intervening if we think it's not right. It just won't be for the sake of doing the "objective right thing", that would be naive to think that way :D So, then you're a proponent of cultural imperialism? Instead of believing in moral realism? Either way, you're saying you think it should not hold us back to intervene. What then is your suggestion WE should do to intervene? Well, I don't know, haha (remember, "what now?" :D) but at least I'm aware of it. I just think that a lot of posters here don't know either. I posted here because I just didn't like when someone talked about science, reason and objectivity when this issue is really about culture, morality and ethics. Maybe I'm just arguing semantics here but I don't even think the sentence "This is objectively right/wrong" makes sense. That was me, among others maybe. This issue is about anything but culture. Culture has no say in matters when innocent lifes are being squashed. Science however shows that FGM is useless, and has harrowing effects on the women involved. That makes it objectively wrong. It makes it subjectively wrong from any rational perspective, but nothing is objectively wrong. Right and wrong are subjective value judgements, it's not right or wrong when a star goes supernova, it's not right or wrong when water evaporates, it simply is. It's not objectively wrong to murder people, but every rational person holds the strong subjective belief that it's wrong so it's safe to say "murder is wrong". Maybe he was just arguing semantics, as he acknowledged, but saying something is "objectively wrong" doesn't actually make sense at all. 1+1=7 is not objectively wrong? That's not a subjective value judgement, that's a mathematical fallacy. 1+1=7 is objectively wrong, of course. Indeed. Now to make clear that even in life we can objectively say something is wrong: For example a heart surgeon performs a surgery on someone who doesn't have any heart conditions. The surgeon knows this beforehand. Does this make the surgery objectively wrong?
It makes the surgery wrong by any rational subjective standards. Why would you perform surgery for no reason?
Objectively speaking, it's not right or wrong. Subjectively all rational people would agree that it's wrong. No action is objectively right or wrong because right and wrong are subjective value judgements.
Example:
I am having a BBQ on a hot day, and it begins to rain. I am upset, and I declare it a bad thing that it rained.
My neighbour is a keen gardener and his plants haven't had water in a long time, finally it rains and he declares it a good thing that it rained.
We have both made different subjective judgements about the rain, but objectively speaking the rain is not a good thing or a bad thing, it is simply rain.
This is why FGM is not objectively right or wrong.
Subjectively we feel it is bad and subjectively they feel it is good.
Objectively, it is just FGM.
Make no mistake, I'm strongly against FGM and the fact that it's not objectively wrong in no way lessons my distaste for the practice or my feelings that it shouldn't be done, but I don't let my personal feelings cloud my understanding of morality and objectivity vs subjectivity.
|
On July 28 2013 07:20 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 07:16 cloneThorN wrote:On July 28 2013 07:13 Crushinator wrote:On July 28 2013 07:09 cloneThorN wrote:On July 28 2013 07:02 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 06:57 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:49 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 06:41 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:39 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 06:34 Shival wrote:
[quote]
Fine, let me rephrase. Put external pressure on said government to provide legislation and education on the subject.
Though, I don't really get your point, as you're constantly trying to say we should do nothing, simply because it's so damn hard to do anything. Guess we shouldn't have gone to the moon then... Lol, I never said that actually, re-read my posts if you want. My point is basically this one: On July 28 2013 02:42 ZenithM wrote:
[quote]
True. And yet it must not prevent us from intervening if we think it's not right.
It just won't be for the sake of doing the "objective right thing", that would be naive to think that way :D
So, then you're a proponent of cultural imperialism? Instead of believing in moral realism? Either way, you're saying you think it should not hold us back to intervene. What then is your suggestion WE should do to intervene? Well, I don't know, haha (remember, "what now?" :D) but at least I'm aware of it. I just think that a lot of posters here don't know either. I posted here because I just didn't like when someone talked about science, reason and objectivity when this issue is really about culture, morality and ethics. Maybe I'm just arguing semantics here but I don't even think the sentence "This is objectively right/wrong" makes sense. That was me, among others maybe. This issue is about anything but culture. Culture has no say in matters when innocent lifes are being squashed. Science however shows that FGM is useless, and has harrowing effects on the women involved. That makes it objectively wrong. It makes it subjectively wrong from any rational perspective, but nothing is objectively wrong. Right and wrong are subjective value judgements, it's not right or wrong when a star goes supernova, it's not right or wrong when water evaporates, it simply is. It's not objectively wrong to murder people, but every rational person holds the strong subjective belief that it's wrong so it's safe to say "murder is wrong". Maybe he was just arguing semantics, as he acknowledged, but saying something is "objectively wrong" doesn't actually make sense at all. You lost this debate the moment you said that. That is THE most ignorant thing i have heard anyone say since 3rd grade. I'm guessing you went to school at some point. At exams and tests, did you just give them a paper saying "No answer is right or wrong, it's subjetive!" ?! Theres other examples, but this one should be fool proof enough to make you understand why you are wrong. When he uses the word ''wrong'' he is not using it as a synonym to ''incorrect'' but rather as imorally wrong. There is a difference, I suggest you learn it, Theres no difference, YOU are making that difference. If you say something cannot be immorally right or wrong, then there exists no moral, as you have no options to choose from. Everythiing wiill be both right and wrong, which is a paradox ancient lords used alot on uneducated and stupid people. We grew away from that in the age of enlightment. What the fuck are you even talking about? Are you on drugs or was the school you spoke of earlier just really really bad?
Please us your head instead of wasting our time with useless comments.
In short, i debunked the view of "no morally right or wrong", because there these are two absolutes that can not be mixed. Either you got the right answer or you don't. Simple as that. This apply to morals aswell.
|
Well, first, you would need to clarify your point of view if its okay to judge other peoples rituals/religion/whatever that are not from a western world from a western point of view.
This said, in a western world i deplore this. But to tell those people this is wrong.. who the hell am i. If they are okay with it god, jesus, christ, einstein, let them do what they think is right.
If they, as a society, with science and knowledge learn that they are wrong, in our eyes, well i welcome it. But right now i don´t care a single fuck about those countries. Let them do what they like while we´ll rise to the moon they still fighting for dirt. I don´t care. I should- but influence from outside to those non-western countries never did anything good. If they childs won´t learn what´s wrong or right in a greater sense of human man kind they should just perish into darkness.
tl:dr
you can´t do nothing, they need to learn for themselves, but i hate fgm
|
On July 28 2013 07:23 cloneThorN wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 07:19 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 07:16 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:05 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 07:03 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:02 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 06:57 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:49 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 06:41 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:39 ZenithM wrote:
[quote]
Lol, I never said that actually, re-read my posts if you want. My point is basically this one:
[quote] So, then you're a proponent of cultural imperialism? Instead of believing in moral realism? Either way, you're saying you think it should not hold us back to intervene. What then is your suggestion WE should do to intervene? Well, I don't know, haha (remember, "what now?" :D) but at least I'm aware of it. I just think that a lot of posters here don't know either. I posted here because I just didn't like when someone talked about science, reason and objectivity when this issue is really about culture, morality and ethics. Maybe I'm just arguing semantics here but I don't even think the sentence "This is objectively right/wrong" makes sense. That was me, among others maybe. This issue is about anything but culture. Culture has no say in matters when innocent lifes are being squashed. Science however shows that FGM is useless, and has harrowing effects on the women involved. That makes it objectively wrong. It makes it subjectively wrong from any rational perspective, but nothing is objectively wrong. Right and wrong are subjective value judgements, it's not right or wrong when a star goes supernova, it's not right or wrong when water evaporates, it simply is. It's not objectively wrong to murder people, but every rational person holds the strong subjective belief that it's wrong so it's safe to say "murder is wrong". Maybe he was just arguing semantics, as he acknowledged, but saying something is "objectively wrong" doesn't actually make sense at all. 1+1=7 is not objectively wrong? That's not a subjective value judgement, that's a mathematical fallacy. 1+1=7 is objectively wrong, of course. Indeed. Now to make clear that even in life we can objectively say something is wrong: For example a heart surgeon performs a surgery on someone who doesn't have any heart conditions. The surgeon knows this beforehand. Does this make the surgery objectively wrong? ...No? :D It's pretty dumb, but it's not wrong, unless the surgeon means to kill the guy during the process or something :D If I try to go to work walking on my hands, it's dumb, but it's not wrong. It's easely wrong. A: It cost alot of rescourse to perform heart surgery. B: it delays the surgeon from helping people who desperately needs surgery. C: It can kill the patient if accidents happen. This is why such surgeries are a last option only thiing. And i could go on and on. This is DEFINATLY a wrong thing to do.
I took a more abstract view of the situation. From your point of view, this is probably wrong indeed, but "objectively wrong"? I don't even know why the surgery does happen in the first place, who was the patient and why the surgeon said nothing.
Either you got the right answer or you don't. Simple as that. This apply to morals aswell.
Lol.
|
On July 28 2013 07:26 cloneThorN wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 07:20 Crushinator wrote:On July 28 2013 07:16 cloneThorN wrote:On July 28 2013 07:13 Crushinator wrote:On July 28 2013 07:09 cloneThorN wrote:On July 28 2013 07:02 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 06:57 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:49 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 06:41 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:39 ZenithM wrote:
[quote]
Lol, I never said that actually, re-read my posts if you want. My point is basically this one:
[quote] So, then you're a proponent of cultural imperialism? Instead of believing in moral realism? Either way, you're saying you think it should not hold us back to intervene. What then is your suggestion WE should do to intervene? Well, I don't know, haha (remember, "what now?" :D) but at least I'm aware of it. I just think that a lot of posters here don't know either. I posted here because I just didn't like when someone talked about science, reason and objectivity when this issue is really about culture, morality and ethics. Maybe I'm just arguing semantics here but I don't even think the sentence "This is objectively right/wrong" makes sense. That was me, among others maybe. This issue is about anything but culture. Culture has no say in matters when innocent lifes are being squashed. Science however shows that FGM is useless, and has harrowing effects on the women involved. That makes it objectively wrong. It makes it subjectively wrong from any rational perspective, but nothing is objectively wrong. Right and wrong are subjective value judgements, it's not right or wrong when a star goes supernova, it's not right or wrong when water evaporates, it simply is. It's not objectively wrong to murder people, but every rational person holds the strong subjective belief that it's wrong so it's safe to say "murder is wrong". Maybe he was just arguing semantics, as he acknowledged, but saying something is "objectively wrong" doesn't actually make sense at all. You lost this debate the moment you said that. That is THE most ignorant thing i have heard anyone say since 3rd grade. I'm guessing you went to school at some point. At exams and tests, did you just give them a paper saying "No answer is right or wrong, it's subjetive!" ?! Theres other examples, but this one should be fool proof enough to make you understand why you are wrong. When he uses the word ''wrong'' he is not using it as a synonym to ''incorrect'' but rather as imorally wrong. There is a difference, I suggest you learn it, Theres no difference, YOU are making that difference. If you say something cannot be immorally right or wrong, then there exists no moral, as you have no options to choose from. Everythiing wiill be both right and wrong, which is a paradox ancient lords used alot on uneducated and stupid people. We grew away from that in the age of enlightment. What the fuck are you even talking about? Are you on drugs or was the school you spoke of earlier just really really bad? Please us your head instead of wasting our time with useless comments. In short, i debunked the view of "no morally right or wrong", because there these are two absolutes that can not be mixed. Either you got the right answer or you don't. Simple as that. This apply to morals aswell.
What the hell? I just pointed out that wrong in the context of morals and wrong as in incorrect are 2 different things, and as such must not be confused. This isnt up for debate. The two concepts are fundamentally different.
|
On July 28 2013 07:30 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 07:23 cloneThorN wrote:On July 28 2013 07:19 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 07:16 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:05 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 07:03 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:02 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 06:57 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:49 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 06:41 Shival wrote:
[quote]
So, then you're a proponent of cultural imperialism? Instead of believing in moral realism?
Either way, you're saying you think it should not hold us back to intervene. What then is your suggestion WE should do to intervene?
Well, I don't know, haha (remember, "what now?" :D) but at least I'm aware of it. I just think that a lot of posters here don't know either. I posted here because I just didn't like when someone talked about science, reason and objectivity when this issue is really about culture, morality and ethics. Maybe I'm just arguing semantics here but I don't even think the sentence "This is objectively right/wrong" makes sense. That was me, among others maybe. This issue is about anything but culture. Culture has no say in matters when innocent lifes are being squashed. Science however shows that FGM is useless, and has harrowing effects on the women involved. That makes it objectively wrong. It makes it subjectively wrong from any rational perspective, but nothing is objectively wrong. Right and wrong are subjective value judgements, it's not right or wrong when a star goes supernova, it's not right or wrong when water evaporates, it simply is. It's not objectively wrong to murder people, but every rational person holds the strong subjective belief that it's wrong so it's safe to say "murder is wrong". Maybe he was just arguing semantics, as he acknowledged, but saying something is "objectively wrong" doesn't actually make sense at all. 1+1=7 is not objectively wrong? That's not a subjective value judgement, that's a mathematical fallacy. 1+1=7 is objectively wrong, of course. Indeed. Now to make clear that even in life we can objectively say something is wrong: For example a heart surgeon performs a surgery on someone who doesn't have any heart conditions. The surgeon knows this beforehand. Does this make the surgery objectively wrong? ...No? :D It's pretty dumb, but it's not wrong, unless the surgeon means to kill the guy during the process or something :D If I try to go to work walking on my hands, it's dumb, but it's not wrong. It's easely wrong. A: It cost alot of rescourse to perform heart surgery. B: it delays the surgeon from helping people who desperately needs surgery. C: It can kill the patient if accidents happen. This is why such surgeries are a last option only thiing. And i could go on and on. This is DEFINATLY a wrong thing to do. I took a more abstract view of the situation. From your point of view, this is probably wrong indeed, but "objectively wrong"? I don't even know why the surgery does happen in the first place, who was the patient and why the surgeon said nothing.
II would say that it's objectively a fucking disaster if such a thing happende irl. It would harm everyone involved. How is that not objectively bad?
|
On July 28 2013 07:23 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 07:16 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:05 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 07:03 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:02 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 06:57 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:49 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 06:41 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:39 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 06:34 Shival wrote:
[quote]
Fine, let me rephrase. Put external pressure on said government to provide legislation and education on the subject.
Though, I don't really get your point, as you're constantly trying to say we should do nothing, simply because it's so damn hard to do anything. Guess we shouldn't have gone to the moon then... Lol, I never said that actually, re-read my posts if you want. My point is basically this one: On July 28 2013 02:42 ZenithM wrote:
[quote]
True. And yet it must not prevent us from intervening if we think it's not right.
It just won't be for the sake of doing the "objective right thing", that would be naive to think that way :D
So, then you're a proponent of cultural imperialism? Instead of believing in moral realism? Either way, you're saying you think it should not hold us back to intervene. What then is your suggestion WE should do to intervene? Well, I don't know, haha (remember, "what now?" :D) but at least I'm aware of it. I just think that a lot of posters here don't know either. I posted here because I just didn't like when someone talked about science, reason and objectivity when this issue is really about culture, morality and ethics. Maybe I'm just arguing semantics here but I don't even think the sentence "This is objectively right/wrong" makes sense. That was me, among others maybe. This issue is about anything but culture. Culture has no say in matters when innocent lifes are being squashed. Science however shows that FGM is useless, and has harrowing effects on the women involved. That makes it objectively wrong. It makes it subjectively wrong from any rational perspective, but nothing is objectively wrong. Right and wrong are subjective value judgements, it's not right or wrong when a star goes supernova, it's not right or wrong when water evaporates, it simply is. It's not objectively wrong to murder people, but every rational person holds the strong subjective belief that it's wrong so it's safe to say "murder is wrong". Maybe he was just arguing semantics, as he acknowledged, but saying something is "objectively wrong" doesn't actually make sense at all. 1+1=7 is not objectively wrong? That's not a subjective value judgement, that's a mathematical fallacy. 1+1=7 is objectively wrong, of course. Indeed. Now to make clear that even in life we can objectively say something is wrong: For example a heart surgeon performs a surgery on someone who doesn't have any heart conditions. The surgeon knows this beforehand. Does this make the surgery objectively wrong? It makes the surgery wrong by any rational subjective standards. Why would you perform surgery for no reason? Objectively speaking, it's not right or wrong. Subjectively all rational people would agree that it's wrong. No action is objectively right or wrong because right or wrong are subjective value judgements. Example: I am having a BBQ on a hot day, and it begins to rain. I am upset, and I declare it a bad thing that it rained. My neighbour is a keen gardener and his plants haven't had water in a long time, finally it rains and he declares it a good thing that it rained. We have both made different subjective judgements about the rain, but objectively speaking the rain is not a good thing or a bad thing, it is simply rain. This is why FGM is not objectively right or wrong. Subjectively we feel it is bad and subjectively they feel it is good. Objectively, it is just FGM.
No, that entirely depends on what arguments you allow before deciding whether its subjectively or objectively wrong. The surgeon performed a needless action, that in itself is objectively wrong (not as in evil/good). You can then decide how badly you think it is wrong (as in evil/good), but it is wrong (not as in evil/good) nonetheless. Thus right and wrong can be objective, the subjective part is in it's gradation. Now, say we take subjective matters into the equation, such as that the person he was operating on was a killer, that may change the gradation, but it does not change the overall right or wrong.
I can objectively say that rain is a good thing for plants. Now, I could hate plants, so then I would subjectively say that rain is an evil thing. Still, objectively it remains a good thing.
|
On July 28 2013 07:32 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 07:26 cloneThorN wrote:On July 28 2013 07:20 Crushinator wrote:On July 28 2013 07:16 cloneThorN wrote:On July 28 2013 07:13 Crushinator wrote:On July 28 2013 07:09 cloneThorN wrote:On July 28 2013 07:02 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 06:57 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:49 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 06:41 Shival wrote:
[quote]
So, then you're a proponent of cultural imperialism? Instead of believing in moral realism?
Either way, you're saying you think it should not hold us back to intervene. What then is your suggestion WE should do to intervene?
Well, I don't know, haha (remember, "what now?" :D) but at least I'm aware of it. I just think that a lot of posters here don't know either. I posted here because I just didn't like when someone talked about science, reason and objectivity when this issue is really about culture, morality and ethics. Maybe I'm just arguing semantics here but I don't even think the sentence "This is objectively right/wrong" makes sense. That was me, among others maybe. This issue is about anything but culture. Culture has no say in matters when innocent lifes are being squashed. Science however shows that FGM is useless, and has harrowing effects on the women involved. That makes it objectively wrong. It makes it subjectively wrong from any rational perspective, but nothing is objectively wrong. Right and wrong are subjective value judgements, it's not right or wrong when a star goes supernova, it's not right or wrong when water evaporates, it simply is. It's not objectively wrong to murder people, but every rational person holds the strong subjective belief that it's wrong so it's safe to say "murder is wrong". Maybe he was just arguing semantics, as he acknowledged, but saying something is "objectively wrong" doesn't actually make sense at all. You lost this debate the moment you said that. That is THE most ignorant thing i have heard anyone say since 3rd grade. I'm guessing you went to school at some point. At exams and tests, did you just give them a paper saying "No answer is right or wrong, it's subjetive!" ?! Theres other examples, but this one should be fool proof enough to make you understand why you are wrong. When he uses the word ''wrong'' he is not using it as a synonym to ''incorrect'' but rather as imorally wrong. There is a difference, I suggest you learn it, Theres no difference, YOU are making that difference. If you say something cannot be immorally right or wrong, then there exists no moral, as you have no options to choose from. Everythiing wiill be both right and wrong, which is a paradox ancient lords used alot on uneducated and stupid people. We grew away from that in the age of enlightment. What the fuck are you even talking about? Are you on drugs or was the school you spoke of earlier just really really bad? Please us your head instead of wasting our time with useless comments. In short, i debunked the view of "no morally right or wrong", because there these are two absolutes that can not be mixed. Either you got the right answer or you don't. Simple as that. This apply to morals aswell. What the hell? I just pointed out that wrong in the context of moral and wrong as in incorrect are 2 different things, and as such must not be confused. This isnt up for debate. The two concepts are fundamentally different.
Care to explain why they are different? Cause i sure as hell do not see the difference. II can see why people could think they are different, but theres too much that speak the other way imo.
|
So maybe you also shouldn't confuse the concept of morally wrong/good with the concept of beneficial/detrimental. The ideas are certainly related, but hardly the same thing.
|
I don't confuse the two things, they are connected...
|
On July 28 2013 07:34 Shival wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 07:23 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 07:16 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:05 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 07:03 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:02 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 06:57 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:49 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 06:41 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:39 ZenithM wrote:
[quote]
Lol, I never said that actually, re-read my posts if you want. My point is basically this one:
[quote] So, then you're a proponent of cultural imperialism? Instead of believing in moral realism? Either way, you're saying you think it should not hold us back to intervene. What then is your suggestion WE should do to intervene? Well, I don't know, haha (remember, "what now?" :D) but at least I'm aware of it. I just think that a lot of posters here don't know either. I posted here because I just didn't like when someone talked about science, reason and objectivity when this issue is really about culture, morality and ethics. Maybe I'm just arguing semantics here but I don't even think the sentence "This is objectively right/wrong" makes sense. That was me, among others maybe. This issue is about anything but culture. Culture has no say in matters when innocent lifes are being squashed. Science however shows that FGM is useless, and has harrowing effects on the women involved. That makes it objectively wrong. It makes it subjectively wrong from any rational perspective, but nothing is objectively wrong. Right and wrong are subjective value judgements, it's not right or wrong when a star goes supernova, it's not right or wrong when water evaporates, it simply is. It's not objectively wrong to murder people, but every rational person holds the strong subjective belief that it's wrong so it's safe to say "murder is wrong". Maybe he was just arguing semantics, as he acknowledged, but saying something is "objectively wrong" doesn't actually make sense at all. 1+1=7 is not objectively wrong? That's not a subjective value judgement, that's a mathematical fallacy. 1+1=7 is objectively wrong, of course. Indeed. Now to make clear that even in life we can objectively say something is wrong: For example a heart surgeon performs a surgery on someone who doesn't have any heart conditions. The surgeon knows this beforehand. Does this make the surgery objectively wrong? It makes the surgery wrong by any rational subjective standards. Why would you perform surgery for no reason? Objectively speaking, it's not right or wrong. Subjectively all rational people would agree that it's wrong. No action is objectively right or wrong because right or wrong are subjective value judgements. Example: I am having a BBQ on a hot day, and it begins to rain. I am upset, and I declare it a bad thing that it rained. My neighbour is a keen gardener and his plants haven't had water in a long time, finally it rains and he declares it a good thing that it rained. We have both made different subjective judgements about the rain, but objectively speaking the rain is not a good thing or a bad thing, it is simply rain. This is why FGM is not objectively right or wrong. Subjectively we feel it is bad and subjectively they feel it is good. Objectively, it is just FGM. No, that entirely depends on what arguments you allow before deciding whether its subjectively or objectively wrong. The surgeon performed a needless action, that in itself is objectively wrong (not as in evil/good). You can then decide how badly you think it is wrong (as in evil/good), but it is wrong (not as in evil/good) nonetheless. Thus right and wrong can be objective, the subjective part is in it's gradation. Now, say we take subjective matters into the equation, such as that the person he was operating on was a killer, that may change the gradation, but it does not change the overall right or wrong. I can objectively say that rain is a good thing for plants.
The performance of a needless action is neither objectively good nor bad, it's simply your subjective opinion that actions should have a purpose.
You don't seem to understand that right/wrong and good/bad are entirely subjective.
You can objectively say that rain is a good thing for plants, yes. However you can't objectively say "rain is good". It's not good or bad, it's just rain.
It's objectively bad for my BBQ if you have a traditional BBQ in mind and it's objectively good for his plants if he's the kind of gardener who doesn't want his plants to die, but the rain itself is not objectively good or bad. Do you understand?
Because rain is objectively bad for a traditional BBQ I will hold the subjective opinion that it was "bad that it rained"
Because rain is objectively good for plants if they need water he will hold the subjective opinion that it was "good that it rained"
Objectively speaking it was neither a good thing nor a bad thing that it rained. It just rained.
|
On July 28 2013 07:34 Shival wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 07:23 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 07:16 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:05 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 07:03 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:02 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 06:57 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:49 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 06:41 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:39 ZenithM wrote:
[quote]
Lol, I never said that actually, re-read my posts if you want. My point is basically this one:
[quote] So, then you're a proponent of cultural imperialism? Instead of believing in moral realism? Either way, you're saying you think it should not hold us back to intervene. What then is your suggestion WE should do to intervene? Well, I don't know, haha (remember, "what now?" :D) but at least I'm aware of it. I just think that a lot of posters here don't know either. I posted here because I just didn't like when someone talked about science, reason and objectivity when this issue is really about culture, morality and ethics. Maybe I'm just arguing semantics here but I don't even think the sentence "This is objectively right/wrong" makes sense. That was me, among others maybe. This issue is about anything but culture. Culture has no say in matters when innocent lifes are being squashed. Science however shows that FGM is useless, and has harrowing effects on the women involved. That makes it objectively wrong. It makes it subjectively wrong from any rational perspective, but nothing is objectively wrong. Right and wrong are subjective value judgements, it's not right or wrong when a star goes supernova, it's not right or wrong when water evaporates, it simply is. It's not objectively wrong to murder people, but every rational person holds the strong subjective belief that it's wrong so it's safe to say "murder is wrong". Maybe he was just arguing semantics, as he acknowledged, but saying something is "objectively wrong" doesn't actually make sense at all. 1+1=7 is not objectively wrong? That's not a subjective value judgement, that's a mathematical fallacy. 1+1=7 is objectively wrong, of course. Indeed. Now to make clear that even in life we can objectively say something is wrong: For example a heart surgeon performs a surgery on someone who doesn't have any heart conditions. The surgeon knows this beforehand. Does this make the surgery objectively wrong? It makes the surgery wrong by any rational subjective standards. Why would you perform surgery for no reason? Objectively speaking, it's not right or wrong. Subjectively all rational people would agree that it's wrong. No action is objectively right or wrong because right or wrong are subjective value judgements. Example: I am having a BBQ on a hot day, and it begins to rain. I am upset, and I declare it a bad thing that it rained. My neighbour is a keen gardener and his plants haven't had water in a long time, finally it rains and he declares it a good thing that it rained. We have both made different subjective judgements about the rain, but objectively speaking the rain is not a good thing or a bad thing, it is simply rain. This is why FGM is not objectively right or wrong. Subjectively we feel it is bad and subjectively they feel it is good. Objectively, it is just FGM. I can objectively say that rain is a good thing for plants.
That depends on the plant. There is such thing as too much rain for them 
|
On July 28 2013 07:35 cloneThorN wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 07:32 Crushinator wrote:On July 28 2013 07:26 cloneThorN wrote:On July 28 2013 07:20 Crushinator wrote:On July 28 2013 07:16 cloneThorN wrote:On July 28 2013 07:13 Crushinator wrote:On July 28 2013 07:09 cloneThorN wrote:On July 28 2013 07:02 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 06:57 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:49 ZenithM wrote:
[quote]
Well, I don't know, haha (remember, "what now?" :D) but at least I'm aware of it. I just think that a lot of posters here don't know either.
I posted here because I just didn't like when someone talked about science, reason and objectivity when this issue is really about culture, morality and ethics. Maybe I'm just arguing semantics here but I don't even think the sentence "This is objectively right/wrong" makes sense. That was me, among others maybe. This issue is about anything but culture. Culture has no say in matters when innocent lifes are being squashed. Science however shows that FGM is useless, and has harrowing effects on the women involved. That makes it objectively wrong. It makes it subjectively wrong from any rational perspective, but nothing is objectively wrong. Right and wrong are subjective value judgements, it's not right or wrong when a star goes supernova, it's not right or wrong when water evaporates, it simply is. It's not objectively wrong to murder people, but every rational person holds the strong subjective belief that it's wrong so it's safe to say "murder is wrong". Maybe he was just arguing semantics, as he acknowledged, but saying something is "objectively wrong" doesn't actually make sense at all. You lost this debate the moment you said that. That is THE most ignorant thing i have heard anyone say since 3rd grade. I'm guessing you went to school at some point. At exams and tests, did you just give them a paper saying "No answer is right or wrong, it's subjetive!" ?! Theres other examples, but this one should be fool proof enough to make you understand why you are wrong. When he uses the word ''wrong'' he is not using it as a synonym to ''incorrect'' but rather as imorally wrong. There is a difference, I suggest you learn it, Theres no difference, YOU are making that difference. If you say something cannot be immorally right or wrong, then there exists no moral, as you have no options to choose from. Everythiing wiill be both right and wrong, which is a paradox ancient lords used alot on uneducated and stupid people. We grew away from that in the age of enlightment. What the fuck are you even talking about? Are you on drugs or was the school you spoke of earlier just really really bad? Please us your head instead of wasting our time with useless comments. In short, i debunked the view of "no morally right or wrong", because there these are two absolutes that can not be mixed. Either you got the right answer or you don't. Simple as that. This apply to morals aswell. What the hell? I just pointed out that wrong in the context of moral and wrong as in incorrect are 2 different things, and as such must not be confused. This isnt up for debate. The two concepts are fundamentally different. Care to explain why they are different? Cause i sure as hell do not see the difference. II can see why people could think they are different, but theres too much that speak the other way imo.
I really really don't understand your confusion.
1+1 =3 is incorrect, the answer to the question what is the sum of 1 and 1 is wrong. No value judgement is made at any point. 1+1=3 is not morally wrong, even though it is incorrect.
On July 28 2013 07:37 cloneThorN wrote:
I don't confuse the two things, they are connected...
Wasn't talking to you there. Sorry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
