|
On July 28 2013 07:33 cloneThorN wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 07:30 ZenithM wrote: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:
[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. 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?
Okay. It's objectively bad, you got me there.
Oh crap, I almost forgot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion. I don't think the surgery situation can happen as you told it, it's completely unrealistic if you don't give me more informations. So in fact, you just derived "objectively bad" from a false statement, so I don't really care. Huehuehue.
|
On July 28 2013 07:38 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 07:34 Shival wrote: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:
[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 must have 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?
First off, you don't seem to understand that you are wrong.
Second off, it's Rain is objectively better for both the plants AND the BBQ, as there would be no vegetation without rain, and no animals to make BBQ off....
|
On July 28 2013 07:40 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 07:33 cloneThorN wrote:On July 28 2013 07:30 ZenithM wrote: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:
[quote]
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? Okay. It's objectively bad, you got me there. Oh crap, I almost forgot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion. I don't think the surgery situation can happen as you told it, it's completely unrealistic if you don't give me more informations. So in fact, you just derived "objectively bad" from a false statement, so I don't really care. Huehuehue.
delete*
|
There is no moral judgement made when saying "Rain is good for plants", lol. And rain isn't morally right or wrong for plants. "Water is required for most plants" is an objectively right statement. As in objectively correct :p
Edit: I don't think we can talk about "right and wrong" when mankind isn't related whatsoever. As in the plant thing.
|
On July 28 2013 07:38 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 07:34 Shival wrote: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:
[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 must have 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?
I have understood your point from the very beginning. You're arguing from the basis that 'nothing' can be right/wrong, good/evil etc. That is only true if you take an object or thought at face value, give it an arguement that is objective it can become objectively right/wrong in that case.
Though, I hope you realise we're on opposing fronts of a philosophical debate that has raged for centuries. I don't think we'll get much closer than where we are right now, judging by our predecessors.
|
TL is getting too philosophical for my taste. Anyway, good information.
|
On July 28 2013 07:43 ZenithM wrote:
There is no moral judgement made when saying "Rain is good for plants", lol. And rain isn't morally right or wrong for plants. "Water is required for most plants" is an objectively right statement. As in objectively correct :p
Edit: I don't think we can talk about "right and wrong" when mankind isn't related whatsoever. As in the plant thing.
Exactly! Such a conversation doesn't even make sense. Is a super nova bad? Is a black whole good? Without a human with subjective opinions to make such judgements the terminology good/bad or right/wrong doesn't mean a thing.
On July 28 2013 07:44 Shival wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 07:38 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 07:34 Shival wrote: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:
[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. 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 must have 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? I have understood your point from the very beginning. You're arguing from the basis that 'nothing' can be right/wrong, good/evil etc. That is only true if you take an object or thought at face value, give it an arguement that is objective it can become objectively right/wrong in that case. Though, I hope you realise we're on opposing fronts of a philosophical debate that has raged for centuries. I don't think we'll get much closer than where we are right now, judging by our predecessors.
If you want to believe morality is objective that's your own business but I haven't seen you give one example to support such a belief. I've given numerous examples demonstrating why right/wrong and good/bad are entirely subjective and you have either chosen not to debunk them or you are incapable of doing so.
I challenge you to give me an example demonstrating that morality is objective that I won't be able to tear apart instantly. If you really believe morality is objective you should be able to conjure up a whole load of examples with ease, just as I have done. Alternatively, you could attempt to explain why my examples are flawed but so far you've done neither so until you actually communicate and explain your beliefs with greater clarity or refute mine in an equally rigorous fashion there is nothing further to discuss.
|
On July 28 2013 07:51 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 07:44 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:38 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 07:34 Shival wrote: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:
[quote]
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 must have 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? I have understood your point from the very beginning. You're arguing from the basis that 'nothing' can be right/wrong, good/evil etc. That is only true if you take an object or thought at face value, give it an arguement that is objective it can become objectively right/wrong in that case. Though, I hope you realise we're on opposing fronts of a philosophical debate that has raged for centuries. I don't think we'll get much closer than where we are right now, judging by our predecessors. If you want to believe morality is objective that's your own business but I haven't seen you give one example to support such a belief. I've given numerous examples demonstrating why right/wrong and good/bad are entirely subjective and you have either chosen not to debunk them or you are incapable of doing so. I challenge you to give me an example demonstrating that morality is objective that I won't be able to tear apart instantly. If you really believe morality is objective you should be able to conjure up a whole load of examples with ease, just as I have done. Alternatively, you could attempt to explain why my examples are flawed but so far you've done neither so until you actually communicate and explain your beliefs with greater clarity or refute mine in an equally rigorous fashion there is nothing further to discuss.
I kinda debunked your examples. It was easy too. Read the thread through from page 7..
|
So coming back to the topic at hand, I do think FGM is morally wrong.
At least there is that :D
|
On July 28 2013 07:44 Shival wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 07:38 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 07:34 Shival wrote: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:
[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. 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 must have 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? I have understood your point from the very beginning. You're arguing from the basis that 'nothing' can be right/wrong, good/evil etc. That is only true if you take an object or thought at face value, give it an arguement that is objective it can become objectively right/wrong in that case. Though, I hope you realise we're on opposing fronts of a philosophical debate that has raged for centuries. I don't think we'll get much closer than where we are right now, judging by our predecessors.
I don't think his point is that there isn't such a thing as right and wrong, but rather that the wrongness of a behavior cannot be measured, not directly or indirectly. If you want to relate the wrongness of an action to the net effect it has on suffering in the world, then you still would not be able to objectively measure suffering. You are always dependent on the subjective experiences of people when it comes to determining right and wrong.
There are probably things we can all agree on, are wrong, but that doesn't make even that thing objectively wrong, it is just that all of our subjective conclusions are in agreement.
That said, FGM is fucking horrible, and please stop doing it to anyone, thanks.
|
On July 28 2013 07:53 cloneThorN wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 07:51 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 07:44 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:38 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 07:34 Shival wrote: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:
[quote]
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 must have 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? I have understood your point from the very beginning. You're arguing from the basis that 'nothing' can be right/wrong, good/evil etc. That is only true if you take an object or thought at face value, give it an arguement that is objective it can become objectively right/wrong in that case. Though, I hope you realise we're on opposing fronts of a philosophical debate that has raged for centuries. I don't think we'll get much closer than where we are right now, judging by our predecessors. If you want to believe morality is objective that's your own business but I haven't seen you give one example to support such a belief. I've given numerous examples demonstrating why right/wrong and good/bad are entirely subjective and you have either chosen not to debunk them or you are incapable of doing so. I challenge you to give me an example demonstrating that morality is objective that I won't be able to tear apart instantly. If you really believe morality is objective you should be able to conjure up a whole load of examples with ease, just as I have done. Alternatively, you could attempt to explain why my examples are flawed but so far you've done neither so until you actually communicate and explain your beliefs with greater clarity or refute mine in an equally rigorous fashion there is nothing further to discuss. I kinda debunked your examples. It was easy too. Read the thread through from page 7..
I was reading your little back and forth, and voila, what a waste of ID on that guy? Reason, really? More like Fallacy; All his arguments are really weak and illogical.
|
On July 28 2013 07:51 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 07:44 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:38 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 07:34 Shival wrote: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:
[quote]
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 must have 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? I have understood your point from the very beginning. You're arguing from the basis that 'nothing' can be right/wrong, good/evil etc. That is only true if you take an object or thought at face value, give it an arguement that is objective it can become objectively right/wrong in that case. Though, I hope you realise we're on opposing fronts of a philosophical debate that has raged for centuries. I don't think we'll get much closer than where we are right now, judging by our predecessors. If you want to believe morality is objective that's your own business but I haven't seen you give one example to support such a belief. I've given numerous examples demonstrating why right/wrong and good/bad are entirely subjective and you have either chosen not to debunk them or you are incapable of doing so. I challenge you to give me an example demonstrating that morality is objective that I won't be able to tear apart instantly. If you really believe morality is objective you should be able to conjure up a whole load of examples with ease, just as I have done. Alternatively, you could attempt to explain why my examples are flawed but so far you've done neither so until you actually communicate and explain your beliefs with greater clarity or refute mine in an equally rigorous fashion there is nothing further to discuss.
Ridiculous response, I could say the same.
Anyway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism
Knock yourself out. I suppose you could read some of those references to find examples. Not going to give examples anymore if you merely take away the arguement added onto an object, so we're left only with the object to then say the object is neither wrong nor right. Even a child could do so. Nor do I like the tone you used, which generally does not give you positive results on what you're asking of me. Though I suppose those authors can explain better than I can, I just hope you're not so rigidly set in your tendency to reduce something to its basic.
|
On July 28 2013 07:56 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 07:44 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:38 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 07:34 Shival wrote: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:
[quote]
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 must have 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? I have understood your point from the very beginning. You're arguing from the basis that 'nothing' can be right/wrong, good/evil etc. That is only true if you take an object or thought at face value, give it an arguement that is objective it can become objectively right/wrong in that case. Though, I hope you realise we're on opposing fronts of a philosophical debate that has raged for centuries. I don't think we'll get much closer than where we are right now, judging by our predecessors. I don't think his point is that there isn't such a thing as right and wrong, but rather that the wrongness of a behavior cannot be measured, not directly or indirectly. If you want to relate the wrongness of an action to the net effect it has on suffering in the world, then you still would not be able to objectively measure suffering. You are always dependent on the subjective experiences of people when it comes to determining right and wrong. There are probably things we can all agree on, are wrong, but that doesn't make even that thing objectively wrong, it is just that all of our subjective determinations are in agreement. That said, FGM is fucking horrible, and please stop doing it to anyone, thanks.
If so, then we're practically saying the same. I'm saying that something can be objectively wrong or right, but it cannot be measured as in how bad or good.
|
On July 28 2013 07:59 Shival wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 07:51 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 07:44 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:38 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 07:34 Shival wrote: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:
[quote]
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 must have 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? I have understood your point from the very beginning. You're arguing from the basis that 'nothing' can be right/wrong, good/evil etc. That is only true if you take an object or thought at face value, give it an arguement that is objective it can become objectively right/wrong in that case. Though, I hope you realise we're on opposing fronts of a philosophical debate that has raged for centuries. I don't think we'll get much closer than where we are right now, judging by our predecessors. If you want to believe morality is objective that's your own business but I haven't seen you give one example to support such a belief. I've given numerous examples demonstrating why right/wrong and good/bad are entirely subjective and you have either chosen not to debunk them or you are incapable of doing so. I challenge you to give me an example demonstrating that morality is objective that I won't be able to tear apart instantly. If you really believe morality is objective you should be able to conjure up a whole load of examples with ease, just as I have done. Alternatively, you could attempt to explain why my examples are flawed but so far you've done neither so until you actually communicate and explain your beliefs with greater clarity or refute mine in an equally rigorous fashion there is nothing further to discuss. Ridiculous response, I could say the same. Anyway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realismKnock yourself out. I suppose you could read some of those references to find examples. Not going to give examples anymore if you merely take away the arguement added onto an object, so we're left only with the object to then say the object is neither wrong nor right. Even a child could do so. Nor do I like the tone you used, which generally does not give you positive results on what you're asking of me. Though I suppose those authors can explain better than I can, I just hope you're not so rigidly set in your tendency to reduce something to its basic.
If you're not comfortable explaining and defending your beliefs then you shouldn't be having this discussion.
I'm sorry if English isn't your first language but if you think you "could say the same" then you really don't understand a word of what I've written. I certainly didn't understand what you said here, perhaps you could explain it better?
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 really just don't understand what you're saying there so it's difficult to respond to you on this ....
The surgeon performed a needless action, that in itself is objectively wrong??? Says who? Give me an example!
(not as in evil/good)??? Then what the hell are we talking about?
I just don't understand what you're saying tbh...
|
On July 28 2013 08:03 Shival wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 07:56 Crushinator wrote:On July 28 2013 07:44 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:38 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 07:34 Shival wrote: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:
[quote]
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 must have 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? I have understood your point from the very beginning. You're arguing from the basis that 'nothing' can be right/wrong, good/evil etc. That is only true if you take an object or thought at face value, give it an arguement that is objective it can become objectively right/wrong in that case. Though, I hope you realise we're on opposing fronts of a philosophical debate that has raged for centuries. I don't think we'll get much closer than where we are right now, judging by our predecessors. I don't think his point is that there isn't such a thing as right and wrong, but rather that the wrongness of a behavior cannot be measured, not directly or indirectly. If you want to relate the wrongness of an action to the net effect it has on suffering in the world, then you still would not be able to objectively measure suffering. You are always dependent on the subjective experiences of people when it comes to determining right and wrong. There are probably things we can all agree on, are wrong, but that doesn't make even that thing objectively wrong, it is just that all of our subjective determinations are in agreement. That said, FGM is fucking horrible, and please stop doing it to anyone, thanks. If so, then we're practically saying the same. I'm saying that something can be objectively wrong or right, but it cannot be measured as in how bad or good.
I tend to agree with that atleast, but just reading back I'm not so sure Reason would agree aswell.
|
On July 28 2013 08:12 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 08:03 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:56 Crushinator wrote:On July 28 2013 07:44 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:38 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 07:34 Shival wrote: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:
[quote]
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 must have 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? I have understood your point from the very beginning. You're arguing from the basis that 'nothing' can be right/wrong, good/evil etc. That is only true if you take an object or thought at face value, give it an arguement that is objective it can become objectively right/wrong in that case. Though, I hope you realise we're on opposing fronts of a philosophical debate that has raged for centuries. I don't think we'll get much closer than where we are right now, judging by our predecessors. I don't think his point is that there isn't such a thing as right and wrong, but rather that the wrongness of a behavior cannot be measured, not directly or indirectly. If you want to relate the wrongness of an action to the net effect it has on suffering in the world, then you still would not be able to objectively measure suffering. You are always dependent on the subjective experiences of people when it comes to determining right and wrong. There are probably things we can all agree on, are wrong, but that doesn't make even that thing objectively wrong, it is just that all of our subjective determinations are in agreement. That said, FGM is fucking horrible, and please stop doing it to anyone, thanks. If so, then we're practically saying the same. I'm saying that something can be objectively wrong or right, but it cannot be measured as in how bad or good. I tend to agree with that atleast, but just reading back I'm not so sure Reason would agree aswell.
No I don't agree at first glance, but perhaps if you explain to me how something can be objectively wrong or right or how that terminology even works in an objective sense then maybe we could get somewhere....
It was not my intention to prompt this discussion, I was merely addressing this post by Shival to clear what up what I thought was a simple misunderstanding on his part.
On July 28 2013 06:57 Shival wrote:Show nested quote +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:On July 27 2013 23:52 xM(Z wrote:On July 27 2013 23:35 Shiori wrote:
[quote]
OK, so? What exactly are you trying to argue? that winners don't need justification and that playing the vigilante card, is just disguised hypocrisy. On July 27 2013 23:34 Djzapz wrote:
[quote]
That seems off topic, nobody's talking about going to war. Advocacy is not to be dismissed... I guess you can "win" with pressure but yeah... Not sure what your angle is. ideological wars are the bloodiest and this is what we are doing here. mine is right, yours is wrong so let's see who wins. 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.
I recently lamented to a friend how a significant proportion of threads on teamliquid descend into discussions about morality and subjective vs objective, so believe me that's not what I'm after. I'm astounded by some of the responses in here. If you want to PM me about this that's fine with me. (Crushinator/Shival)
|
On July 28 2013 08:10 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 07:59 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:51 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 07:44 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:38 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 07:34 Shival wrote: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:
[quote]
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 must have 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? I have understood your point from the very beginning. You're arguing from the basis that 'nothing' can be right/wrong, good/evil etc. That is only true if you take an object or thought at face value, give it an arguement that is objective it can become objectively right/wrong in that case. Though, I hope you realise we're on opposing fronts of a philosophical debate that has raged for centuries. I don't think we'll get much closer than where we are right now, judging by our predecessors. If you want to believe morality is objective that's your own business but I haven't seen you give one example to support such a belief. I've given numerous examples demonstrating why right/wrong and good/bad are entirely subjective and you have either chosen not to debunk them or you are incapable of doing so. I challenge you to give me an example demonstrating that morality is objective that I won't be able to tear apart instantly. If you really believe morality is objective you should be able to conjure up a whole load of examples with ease, just as I have done. Alternatively, you could attempt to explain why my examples are flawed but so far you've done neither so until you actually communicate and explain your beliefs with greater clarity or refute mine in an equally rigorous fashion there is nothing further to discuss. Ridiculous response, I could say the same. Anyway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realismKnock yourself out. I suppose you could read some of those references to find examples. Not going to give examples anymore if you merely take away the arguement added onto an object, so we're left only with the object to then say the object is neither wrong nor right. Even a child could do so. Nor do I like the tone you used, which generally does not give you positive results on what you're asking of me. Though I suppose those authors can explain better than I can, I just hope you're not so rigidly set in your tendency to reduce something to its basic. If you're not comfortable explaining and defending your beliefs then you shouldn't be having this discussion. I'm sorry if English isn't your first language but if you think you "could say the same" then you really don't understand a word of what I've written. I certainly didn't understand what you said here, perhaps you could explain it better?
I'm not confortable explaining myself to someone who's as blunt as you are, and that is putting it mildly. I think you should learn some manners if you want to have proper discussions.
Let me quote:
Ethical sentences express propositions.
Some such propositions are true.
Those propositions are made true by objective features of the world, independent of subjective opinion.
That is the gist of what I'm trying to say. You'll get nothing more out of me. If you want other more eloquent examples, go and find them yourself in the references on wikipedia, or in other literature.
|
Edit: There we go, Shival was faster.
Apparently there is this thing called "moral realism" that everyone can throw in your face when you say that nothing can be objectively right or wrong. But I don't think I disagree with moral realism, we're just not talking about the same thing.
When I say "X is objectively wrong", I envision some kind of reasoning on almost purely physical facts. This can't be a moral statement in my mind. That's why I don't even think you can say that "murder is objectively wrong" in this discussion. This may be a mistake on my part, so I'll stop talking about "metaethics"-related stuff.
Nonetheless, you're allowed to disagree with moral realism, Reason, it's just a view, it hasn't been proven :D
At least I know that I find FGM disgusting, so I'll just leave it at that.
|
On July 28 2013 08:13 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 08:12 Crushinator wrote:On July 28 2013 08:03 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:56 Crushinator wrote:On July 28 2013 07:44 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:38 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 07:34 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:23 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 07:16 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:05 Reason wrote:
[quote]
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 must have 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? I have understood your point from the very beginning. You're arguing from the basis that 'nothing' can be right/wrong, good/evil etc. That is only true if you take an object or thought at face value, give it an arguement that is objective it can become objectively right/wrong in that case. Though, I hope you realise we're on opposing fronts of a philosophical debate that has raged for centuries. I don't think we'll get much closer than where we are right now, judging by our predecessors. I don't think his point is that there isn't such a thing as right and wrong, but rather that the wrongness of a behavior cannot be measured, not directly or indirectly. If you want to relate the wrongness of an action to the net effect it has on suffering in the world, then you still would not be able to objectively measure suffering. You are always dependent on the subjective experiences of people when it comes to determining right and wrong. There are probably things we can all agree on, are wrong, but that doesn't make even that thing objectively wrong, it is just that all of our subjective determinations are in agreement. That said, FGM is fucking horrible, and please stop doing it to anyone, thanks. If so, then we're practically saying the same. I'm saying that something can be objectively wrong or right, but it cannot be measured as in how bad or good. I tend to agree with that atleast, but just reading back I'm not so sure Reason would agree aswell. No I don't agree at first glance, but perhaps if you explain to me how something can be objectively wrong or right or how that terminology even works in an objective sense then maybe we could get somewhere.... It was not my intention to prompt this discussion, I was merely addressing this post by Shival to clear what up what I thought was a simple misunderstanding on his part. Show nested quote +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:On July 27 2013 23:52 xM(Z wrote:
[quote]
that winners don't need justification and that playing the vigilante card, is just disguised hypocrisy.
[quote]
ideological wars are the bloodiest and this is what we are doing here.
mine is right, yours is wrong so let's see who wins. 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. I recently lamented to a friend how a significant proportion of threads on teamliquid descend into discussions about morality and subjective vs objective, so believe me that's not what I'm after. I'm astounded by some of the responses in here. If you want to PM me about this that's fine with me. (Crushinator/Shival)
lol take a hike dude, Now you are resorting to ad homs
|
On July 28 2013 08:13 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 08:12 Crushinator wrote:On July 28 2013 08:03 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:56 Crushinator wrote:On July 28 2013 07:44 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:38 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 07:34 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:23 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 07:16 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:05 Reason wrote:
[quote]
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 must have 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? I have understood your point from the very beginning. You're arguing from the basis that 'nothing' can be right/wrong, good/evil etc. That is only true if you take an object or thought at face value, give it an arguement that is objective it can become objectively right/wrong in that case. Though, I hope you realise we're on opposing fronts of a philosophical debate that has raged for centuries. I don't think we'll get much closer than where we are right now, judging by our predecessors. I don't think his point is that there isn't such a thing as right and wrong, but rather that the wrongness of a behavior cannot be measured, not directly or indirectly. If you want to relate the wrongness of an action to the net effect it has on suffering in the world, then you still would not be able to objectively measure suffering. You are always dependent on the subjective experiences of people when it comes to determining right and wrong. There are probably things we can all agree on, are wrong, but that doesn't make even that thing objectively wrong, it is just that all of our subjective determinations are in agreement. That said, FGM is fucking horrible, and please stop doing it to anyone, thanks. If so, then we're practically saying the same. I'm saying that something can be objectively wrong or right, but it cannot be measured as in how bad or good. I tend to agree with that atleast, but just reading back I'm not so sure Reason would agree aswell. No I don't agree at first glance, but perhaps if you explain to me how something can be objectively wrong or right or how that terminology even works in an objective sense then maybe we could get somewhere....
You could argue that, when discussing morality, you are ultimately talking about the concept of suffering. Suffering is 'real', we know this because we, as concsious beings, have all suffered, In the case of FGM you could argue that if it turns out that the suffering of the women who are cut is greater than the supposed beneficial effects, the practice is objectively wrong. We ofcourse cannot measure this, but we can't ever doubt that suffering is going on.
You can ofcourse say that ''ultimately'' it all doesn't matter, as in nihilism, but I don't think that is very productive. Clearly there is a need for us to discuss morality, regardless of any ultimate purpose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
