|
On July 28 2013 08:21 Shival wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 08:10 Reason wrote: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:
[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. 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.
I'll just have to add that it's just a philosophical view, not a fact. Reason is indeed perfectly allowed to disagree with that.
On July 28 2013 08:25 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 08:13 Reason wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
No doubt, there is suffering (and health dangers and such). What I find harder to prove is the absence of benefits, or that "FGM is useless". If they say something along the lines of "We do it because God said so", then you're kinda fucked. Who are you to preach against what God says, is what they'll tell you if you try to convince them that FGM is bad.
|
I'm confused, Reason. You can have objectively bad things, especially if you're a consequentialist. Something is bad if it has bad consequences. And you define bad consequences as by its relation to human well-being. I might not have a perfect understanding of human well-being, but that's a problem with me, not human well-being.
Cutting off a dude's arm isn't a subjective thing. The arm is a real thing, being cut off. It shoots real electricity through somebody's nerves, and stuff like that. There's nothing subjective there. And if that arm had gangrene then it was hopefully worth it to save the dude's life. But I don't see where subjectivity fits into it.
I don't like the word "wrong" because it conflates incorrectness with badness, which are completely different. And it can cause you to be confrontational when you are just trying to correct somebody.
|
On July 28 2013 07:00 Shival wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 06:52 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 28 2013 06:31 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 06:25 xM(Z wrote:On July 28 2013 06:10 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 06:04 xM(Z wrote:On July 28 2013 05:41 ZenithM wrote:
Assuming that "this is objectively wrong", what now?
you go and kill them, softly; until they say - yes sir, you are right. Or you bury them under books until they say: "We're educated now, sir, and you are right." ... and those would be your books right?.  i'd give to that a 50/50 chance at best. also, what if you don't have time to wait until they make up their minds? ps: i'm with DeepElemBlues on the whole consent thing. i mean i understand it as he does. DeepElemBlues is completely right in what he's said about consent but he misinterpreted what Kwark was saying, a simple mistake. I misread one word and feel dumb about it now  Shival
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? Moral realism was hamstrung by World War II, it's not dead by any means but calling its opposite "cultural imperialism" seems a bit much. I personally would want intervention through diplomatic pressure and economic sanction, starting a war over such things, no matter how awful FGM is, would be like blowing up your house to fix a sinkhole in the basement. I don't want to make you feel dumb again, but... I didn't mean to say cultural imperialism is its opposite. What I meant to say is that ZenithM proposes that we should not hold back to intervene, however he doesn't seem to believe in moral realism. Thus that makes him a proponent for cultural imperialism (forcing your belief onto a population simply because you have the means).
That seems to be a very self-serving definition of cultural imperialism - if you are arguing against it. And "you don't believe X thus you must believe in or be Y" is never a good argument.
Cultural imperialism would be "replace your cultural practices with mine because mine are self-evidently superior." I wouldn't call "end this cultural practice because it's objectively wrong" cultural imperialism. Moral absolutism sure, but not imperialism.
|
On July 28 2013 08:26 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 08:21 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 08:10 Reason wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I'll just have to add that it's just a philosophical view, not a fact. Reason is indeed perfectly allowed to disagree with that. Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 08:25 Crushinator wrote:On July 28 2013 08:13 Reason wrote: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:
[quote]
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. No doubt, there is suffering (and health dangers and such). What I find harder to prove is the absence of benefits, or that "FGM is useless". If they say something along the lines of "We do it because God said so", then you're kinda fucked. Who are you to preach against what God says, is what they'll tell you if you try to convince them that FGM is bad.
Mutilation has real, measurable consequences. God has no measurable benefit. Mutilation is objective, god is subjective.
I'll just have to add that it's just a philosophical view, not a fact. Reason is indeed perfectly allowed to disagree with that.
That's perfectly fine with me, I even extended an olive branch towards him to have it rubbed into my face with his almighty righteousness.
Also, thanks DoubleReed, that was more eloquent than I could've said it.
|
Northern Ireland25333 Posts
2deep4me.
End of the day, moral relativism laziness from me :p. My culture gives me the discretion to hate this disgusting practice and complain about it as much as I like, doesn't bother me enough to campaign against it. Such changes must organically happen within the specific regional cultures for the practice ever to really die out
|
Mutilation has real, measurable consequences. God has no measurable benefit. Mutilation is objective, god is subjective.
Well then off you go explaining that to the concerned countries, champ. :D
|
On July 28 2013 08:35 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 07:00 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:52 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 28 2013 06:31 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 06:25 xM(Z wrote:On July 28 2013 06:10 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 06:04 xM(Z wrote:On July 28 2013 05:41 ZenithM wrote:
Assuming that "this is objectively wrong", what now?
you go and kill them, softly; until they say - yes sir, you are right. Or you bury them under books until they say: "We're educated now, sir, and you are right." ... and those would be your books right?. i'd give to that a 50/50 chance at best. also, what if you don't have time to wait until they make up their minds? ps: i'm with DeepElemBlues on the whole consent thing. i mean i understand it as he does. DeepElemBlues is completely right in what he's said about consent but he misinterpreted what Kwark was saying, a simple mistake. I misread one word and feel dumb about it now Shival
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? Moral realism was hamstrung by World War II, it's not dead by any means but calling its opposite "cultural imperialism" seems a bit much. I personally would want intervention through diplomatic pressure and economic sanction, starting a war over such things, no matter how awful FGM is, would be like blowing up your house to fix a sinkhole in the basement. I don't want to make you feel dumb again, but... I didn't mean to say cultural imperialism is its opposite. What I meant to say is that ZenithM proposes that we should not hold back to intervene, however he doesn't seem to believe in moral realism. Thus that makes him a proponent for cultural imperialism (forcing your belief onto a population simply because you have the means). That seems to be a very self-serving definition of cultural imperialism - if you are arguing against it. And "you don't believe X thus you must believe in or be Y" is never a good argument. Cultural imperialism would be "replace your cultural practices with mine because mine are self-evidently superior." I wouldn't call "end this cultural practice because it's objectively wrong" cultural imperialism. Moral absolutism sure, but not imperialism.
Indeed, which is why his point of view was more akin to cultural imperialism than anything else. With his two statements he fit in the description of cultural imperialism. He may or may not believe in it, and that is why I asked him the question.
Though, I agree I should've been a bit less black & white in what I said.
|
On July 28 2013 08:25 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 08:13 Reason wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
These people feel the suffering is a small price to pay for the supposed beneficial effects.
We feel the suffering is too high a price to pay for the supposed beneficial effects.
These are two subjective opinions that are in disagreement with each other.
If you believe that it's worth the suffering, then it is.
If you believe that it's not worth the suffering, then it's not.
It's entirely subjective...
On July 28 2013 08:29 DoubleReed wrote:
I'm confused, Reason. You can have objectively bad things, especially if you're a consequentialist. Something is bad if it has bad consequences. And you define bad consequences as by its relation to human well-being. I might not have a perfect understanding of human well-being, but that's a problem with me, not human well-being.
Cutting off a dude's arm isn't a subjective thing. The arm is a real thing, being cut off. It shoots real electricity through somebody's nerves, and stuff like that. There's nothing subjective there. And if that arm had gangrene then it was hopefully worth it to save the dude's life. But I don't see where subjectivity fits into it.
I don't like the word "wrong" because it conflates incorrectness with badness, which are completely different. And it can cause you to be confrontational when you are just trying to correct somebody.
Something is bad if it has bad consequences? Bad for who? It's subjective.
It's bad for the dude getting his arm cut off, he's in a lot of pain.
Guess what? I'm a sick fuck that enjoys cutting off arms and I'm getting loads of pleasure from this. From my subjective perspective it's not bad, it's awesome.
Objectively? It's neither good nor bad. It's simply happening. It's a matter of perspective. It's subjective.
+ Show Spoiler +No dudes were harmed in the making of this post and the opinions expressed within do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
|
God has no measurable benefit.
Oh come now don't weaken your quite strong argument with statements like this. Belief in God can and has been shown to have benefit for the believer.
I don't think God enters in to this discussion unless someone is basing their support or opposition on their religious beliefs. In which case God may be too restrictive, they might believe in gods
|
On July 28 2013 08:42 DeepElemBlues wrote:Oh come now don't weaken your quite strong argument with statements like this. Belief in God can and has been shown to have benefit for the believer. I don't think God enters in to this discussion unless someone is basing their support or opposition on their religious beliefs.
Eh, true enough. Lets keep it at less measurable then. Problem is they may aswell have believed in Juju up the mountain, who wants them to keep the genitalia intact, for the placebo effect to take place.
|
On July 28 2013 08:41 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 08:29 DoubleReed wrote:
I'm confused, Reason. You can have objectively bad things, especially if you're a consequentialist. Something is bad if it has bad consequences. And you define bad consequences as by its relation to human well-being. I might not have a perfect understanding of human well-being, but that's a problem with me, not human well-being.
Cutting off a dude's arm isn't a subjective thing. The arm is a real thing, being cut off. It shoots real electricity through somebody's nerves, and stuff like that. There's nothing subjective there. And if that arm had gangrene then it was hopefully worth it to save the dude's life. But I don't see where subjectivity fits into it.
I don't like the word "wrong" because it conflates incorrectness with badness, which are completely different. And it can cause you to be confrontational when you are just trying to correct somebody. Something is bad if it has bad consequences? Bad for who? It's subjective. It's bad for the dude getting his arm cut off, he's in a lot of pain. Guess what? I'm a sick fuck that enjoys cutting off arms and I'm getting loads of pleasure from this. From my subjective perspective it's not bad, it's awesome. Objectively? It's neither good nor bad. It's simply happening. It's a matter of perspective. It's subjective. + Show Spoiler +No dudes were harmed in the making of this post and the opinions expressed within do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
I wonder how you define morality. Because it's not an easy word to define. If it's subjective, then I would think it impossible for people to say to other people that their actions are wrong, but in fact, people do this all the time. This just doesn't seem to fit the definition of morality that people actually use.
Yes, under a subjective view of morality, then this is perfectly valid. But that, as far as I've seen, is simply not what people mean by morality. If they did, then people would not call other people immoral or bad. It encompasses more than just personal preferences. No one uses your definition of morality. It's just not what people mean.
The best definition I've seen for what people actually mean by morality is the "optimization of human well-being." Now we can disagree on what "human well-being" means and all the details and stuff (because we have different experiences and information), but it suddenly loses its subjectivity with this definition.
|
I don't think religion is irrelevant to this thread. As seen in the OP, in Eritrea (one of the country where more people would like FGM to continue), 60% of girls and women think of FGM as a religious requirement. So if you want to pressure them into stopping the butcher work, that's who you'll be going up against: God (or gods :D).
|
On July 28 2013 08:41 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 08:25 Crushinator wrote:On July 28 2013 08:13 Reason wrote: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:
[quote]
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. These people feel the suffering is a small price to pay for the supposed beneficial effects. We feel the suffering is too high a price to pay for the supposed beneficial effects. These are two subjective opinions that are in disagreement with each other. If you believe that it's worth the suffering, then it is. If you believe that it's not worth the suffering, then it's not. It's entirely subjective... Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 08:29 DoubleReed wrote:
I'm confused, Reason. You can have objectively bad things, especially if you're a consequentialist. Something is bad if it has bad consequences. And you define bad consequences as by its relation to human well-being. I might not have a perfect understanding of human well-being, but that's a problem with me, not human well-being.
Cutting off a dude's arm isn't a subjective thing. The arm is a real thing, being cut off. It shoots real electricity through somebody's nerves, and stuff like that. There's nothing subjective there. And if that arm had gangrene then it was hopefully worth it to save the dude's life. But I don't see where subjectivity fits into it.
I don't like the word "wrong" because it conflates incorrectness with badness, which are completely different. And it can cause you to be confrontational when you are just trying to correct somebody. Something is bad if it has bad consequences? Bad for who? It's subjective. It's bad for the dude getting his arm cut off, he's in a lot of pain. Guess what? I'm a sick fuck that enjoys cutting off arms and I'm getting loads of pleasure from this. From my subjective perspective it's not bad, it's awesome. Objectively? It's neither good nor bad. It's simply happening. It's a matter of perspective. It's subjective. + Show Spoiler +No dudes were harmed in the making of this post and the opinions expressed within do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
In this way you could indeed argue that we must come to a conclusion subjectively. However, you can't argue that believing something is true makes it so. Following my reasoning, we accept that there is a net effect to suffering to the practice of FGM. This net effect is REAL, so your belief that the practice is wrong/right is either correct or it is not. It is not a matter or perspective.
So even though we must subjectively come to a conclusion, the thing we are making a conclusion about is ultimately objective. I hope this makes sense, its the best I can do.
|
On July 28 2013 08:47 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 08:41 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 08:29 DoubleReed wrote:
I'm confused, Reason. You can have objectively bad things, especially if you're a consequentialist. Something is bad if it has bad consequences. And you define bad consequences as by its relation to human well-being. I might not have a perfect understanding of human well-being, but that's a problem with me, not human well-being.
Cutting off a dude's arm isn't a subjective thing. The arm is a real thing, being cut off. It shoots real electricity through somebody's nerves, and stuff like that. There's nothing subjective there. And if that arm had gangrene then it was hopefully worth it to save the dude's life. But I don't see where subjectivity fits into it.
I don't like the word "wrong" because it conflates incorrectness with badness, which are completely different. And it can cause you to be confrontational when you are just trying to correct somebody. Something is bad if it has bad consequences? Bad for who? It's subjective. It's bad for the dude getting his arm cut off, he's in a lot of pain. Guess what? I'm a sick fuck that enjoys cutting off arms and I'm getting loads of pleasure from this. From my subjective perspective it's not bad, it's awesome. Objectively? It's neither good nor bad. It's simply happening. It's a matter of perspective. It's subjective. + Show Spoiler +No dudes were harmed in the making of this post and the opinions expressed within do not necessarily reflect those of the author. I wonder how you define morality. Because it's not an easy word to define. If it's subjective, then I would think it impossible for people to say to other people that their actions are wrong, but in fact, people do this all the time. This just doesn't seem to fit the definition of morality that people actually use. Yes, under a subjective view of morality, then this is perfectly valid. But that, as far as I've seen, is simply not what people mean by morality. If they did, then people would not call other people immoral or bad. It encompasses more than just personal preferences. The best definition I've seen for what people actually mean by morality is the "optimization of human well-being." Now we can disagree on what "human well-being" means and all the details and stuff, but it suddenly loses all its subjectivity with this definition.
As soon as you begin to attribute qualities that are dependent on the observer you're making a subjective observation.
If we didn't exist black holes would still exist but there would be no one to think that they're cool.
If we didn't exist there would be no declarations of cool or uncool, good or bad, right or wrong, etc things would simply be.
For this reason any such declaration is by definition subjective. You cannot have an objective opinion, you either state an objective fact or you state a subjective opinion. Morals and ethics are matters of opinion, the world we live in demonstrates this clearly. Even if one day we all agree on matters of morality, which would be great, it would simply be a collective subjective agreement rather than an objective truth.
On July 28 2013 08:51 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 08:41 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 08:25 Crushinator wrote:On July 28 2013 08:13 Reason wrote: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:
[quote]
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. These people feel the suffering is a small price to pay for the supposed beneficial effects. We feel the suffering is too high a price to pay for the supposed beneficial effects. These are two subjective opinions that are in disagreement with each other. If you believe that it's worth the suffering, then it is. If you believe that it's not worth the suffering, then it's not. It's entirely subjective... On July 28 2013 08:29 DoubleReed wrote:
I'm confused, Reason. You can have objectively bad things, especially if you're a consequentialist. Something is bad if it has bad consequences. And you define bad consequences as by its relation to human well-being. I might not have a perfect understanding of human well-being, but that's a problem with me, not human well-being.
Cutting off a dude's arm isn't a subjective thing. The arm is a real thing, being cut off. It shoots real electricity through somebody's nerves, and stuff like that. There's nothing subjective there. And if that arm had gangrene then it was hopefully worth it to save the dude's life. But I don't see where subjectivity fits into it.
I don't like the word "wrong" because it conflates incorrectness with badness, which are completely different. And it can cause you to be confrontational when you are just trying to correct somebody. Something is bad if it has bad consequences? Bad for who? It's subjective. It's bad for the dude getting his arm cut off, he's in a lot of pain. Guess what? I'm a sick fuck that enjoys cutting off arms and I'm getting loads of pleasure from this. From my subjective perspective it's not bad, it's awesome. Objectively? It's neither good nor bad. It's simply happening. It's a matter of perspective. It's subjective. + Show Spoiler +No dudes were harmed in the making of this post and the opinions expressed within do not necessarily reflect those of the author. In this way you could indeed argue that we must come to a conclusion subjectively. However, you can't argue that believing something is true makes it so. Following my reasoning, we accept that there is a net effect to suffering to the practice of FGM. This net effect is REAL, so your belief that the practice is wrong/right is either correct or it is not. It is not a matter or perspective. So even though we must subjectively come to a conclusion, the thing we are making a conclusion about is ultimately objective. I hope this makes sense, its the best I can do.
I can argue that believing something is true makes it so very easily. I'm not talking about if I choose to believe in God then God exists or if I choose to believe the Sun won't come up tomorrow that it won't come up, because these are objective truths to which my subjective opinions or beliefs mean nothing.
However, when concerning value judgements such as good or bad this is exactly what happens. Is that burger good value for money? If I decide that the taste is worth the cost, then yes it's good value for money. If I decide the taste is not worth the cost then no, it's not good value for money. Whatever I choose to believe is the truth.
If I decide my criteria for "good value for money" isn't simply whether I think the taste is worth the cost, but rather an independent overview of all burgers in a 1 mile radius taking into account nutritional content, size of the burger, quality and portion size of the accompanying salad and the bun etc etc then these objective factors will all come into play, however, it's my subjective opinion that the definition of what good value for money is will be judged by objective criteria in the first place.
There is no truly objective good value for money. Good value for money is subjectively decided upon by me, the observer, using my own set of criteria. I may choose my own subjective taste experience as my criteria, or I might use objective truths as my criteria, like what you're suggesting with the net suffering of FGM. Yes, the net suffering of FGM is an objective truth although not quantifiable by any reliable method we have at our disposal to date. It hurts a lot? How much does it hurt? It causes infections, sexual problems and even death? That's bad in our subjective human anti-suffering mentality, but how bad is it? Very bad? Quite bad? Really really bad? What about the supposed benefits? The honour of the girl? Her sexual innocence or cleanliness in the eyes of her deity? How important is this? Very important? Super important? Important enough that it outweighs the pain and suffering she experiences?
Again this is all subjective. If this person feels the pain and suffering was worth it for whatever reason then yes it was worth it. If this person chooses to look at medical science and evaluate the short term and long term health effects of such an act and then weigh that up with the unknowable alternate reality where she may or may not have committed sexually indecent acts in the eyes of her culture, God, family, whatever and decide it was all worth it then yes it's worth it. Similarly if she decides it's not worth it then it's not worth it.
Whatever criteria you choose, it's a subjective choice that may or may not involve objective truths but that doesn't change the fundamentally subjective nature of the choice, and the fundamentally subjective nature of opinion. It's inherent in the concept of opinion as opposed to fact, subjective vs objective.
You may be able to demonstrate objectively that the suffering outweighs the benefits according to your subjectively chosen criteria, but someone else can just dismiss what you've said using an alternative set of criteria. The objective truths are not up for debate, it's our subjective interpretation of them or the relevance we choose or choose not to assign that makes such complicated value judgements or statements such as good or bad, right or wrong, far removed from objectivity.
|
On July 28 2013 09:11 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 08:47 DoubleReed wrote:On July 28 2013 08:41 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 08:29 DoubleReed wrote:
I'm confused, Reason. You can have objectively bad things, especially if you're a consequentialist. Something is bad if it has bad consequences. And you define bad consequences as by its relation to human well-being. I might not have a perfect understanding of human well-being, but that's a problem with me, not human well-being.
Cutting off a dude's arm isn't a subjective thing. The arm is a real thing, being cut off. It shoots real electricity through somebody's nerves, and stuff like that. There's nothing subjective there. And if that arm had gangrene then it was hopefully worth it to save the dude's life. But I don't see where subjectivity fits into it.
I don't like the word "wrong" because it conflates incorrectness with badness, which are completely different. And it can cause you to be confrontational when you are just trying to correct somebody. Something is bad if it has bad consequences? Bad for who? It's subjective. It's bad for the dude getting his arm cut off, he's in a lot of pain. Guess what? I'm a sick fuck that enjoys cutting off arms and I'm getting loads of pleasure from this. From my subjective perspective it's not bad, it's awesome. Objectively? It's neither good nor bad. It's simply happening. It's a matter of perspective. It's subjective. + Show Spoiler +No dudes were harmed in the making of this post and the opinions expressed within do not necessarily reflect those of the author. I wonder how you define morality. Because it's not an easy word to define. If it's subjective, then I would think it impossible for people to say to other people that their actions are wrong, but in fact, people do this all the time. This just doesn't seem to fit the definition of morality that people actually use. Yes, under a subjective view of morality, then this is perfectly valid. But that, as far as I've seen, is simply not what people mean by morality. If they did, then people would not call other people immoral or bad. It encompasses more than just personal preferences. The best definition I've seen for what people actually mean by morality is the "optimization of human well-being." Now we can disagree on what "human well-being" means and all the details and stuff, but it suddenly loses all its subjectivity with this definition. As soon as you begin to attribute qualities that are dependent on the observer you're making a subjective observation. If we didn't exist black holes would still exist but there would be no one to think that they're cool. If we didn't exist there would be no declarations of cool or uncool, good or bad, right or wrong, etc things would simply be. For this reason any such declaration is by definition subjective. You cannot have an objective opinion, you either state an objective fact or you state a subjective opinion. Morals and ethics are matters of opinion, the world we live in demonstrates this clearly. Even if one day we all agree on matters of morality, which would be great, it would simply be a collective subjective agreement rather than an objective truth.
You can't just dictate that "morals and ethics are a matter of opinion," because that's the whole discussion we're having.
As I said, I think this is a definition dispute. I don't think this is a real argument. I don't agree on your definition of good and bad and I don't agree with your definition of morality as simply personal preference. I use the fact that people try to enforce their morality on others all the time as evidence that your definition is not the one that people use.
The best way to get around definition disputes is to simply use different words. So let me ask you a different question: Regardless of your opinion of morality, do you think the 'optimization of human well-being' is objective? Do you think something like that could be objective?
|
United States42689 Posts
On July 28 2013 05:49 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +He's not using consent wrong. You just took a completely ridiculous interpretation of what he said. Nope. You're just saying something that's completely ridiculous because you don't like what I said. It boggles the mind that people can think that a wholly internal decision can be characterized as one where consent is absent. Husband wants sex; wife doesn't but with no compulsion from him, because of her own beliefs, has sex with him. Where is the lack of consent? She decided to consent because of an internally felt obligation. Her husband is not controlling her decision-making. She is.
I meant women saying that husbands raping wives in general (not their husband raping them) is legit. Reread my post.
|
If God wanted our genitals any other way, why wouldn't he just snap his fingers and make it so?
Yeah, probably should keep religion out of this, if at all possible..
|
Northern Ireland25333 Posts
I figure in addition, the idea of consent is important. To me there are two distinct issues, i.e FGM occurring at the behest of a girl's parents when she is at a young age, and latterly opting for it due to either genuine desire, or a desire to fit in to certain cultural norms.
I am curious as to whether even the more staunch moral relativists here would probably at least consider outlawing the former?
|
On July 28 2013 10:33 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 09:11 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 08:47 DoubleReed wrote:On July 28 2013 08:41 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 08:29 DoubleReed wrote:
I'm confused, Reason. You can have objectively bad things, especially if you're a consequentialist. Something is bad if it has bad consequences. And you define bad consequences as by its relation to human well-being. I might not have a perfect understanding of human well-being, but that's a problem with me, not human well-being.
Cutting off a dude's arm isn't a subjective thing. The arm is a real thing, being cut off. It shoots real electricity through somebody's nerves, and stuff like that. There's nothing subjective there. And if that arm had gangrene then it was hopefully worth it to save the dude's life. But I don't see where subjectivity fits into it.
I don't like the word "wrong" because it conflates incorrectness with badness, which are completely different. And it can cause you to be confrontational when you are just trying to correct somebody. Something is bad if it has bad consequences? Bad for who? It's subjective. It's bad for the dude getting his arm cut off, he's in a lot of pain. Guess what? I'm a sick fuck that enjoys cutting off arms and I'm getting loads of pleasure from this. From my subjective perspective it's not bad, it's awesome. Objectively? It's neither good nor bad. It's simply happening. It's a matter of perspective. It's subjective. + Show Spoiler +No dudes were harmed in the making of this post and the opinions expressed within do not necessarily reflect those of the author. I wonder how you define morality. Because it's not an easy word to define. If it's subjective, then I would think it impossible for people to say to other people that their actions are wrong, but in fact, people do this all the time. This just doesn't seem to fit the definition of morality that people actually use. Yes, under a subjective view of morality, then this is perfectly valid. But that, as far as I've seen, is simply not what people mean by morality. If they did, then people would not call other people immoral or bad. It encompasses more than just personal preferences. The best definition I've seen for what people actually mean by morality is the "optimization of human well-being." Now we can disagree on what "human well-being" means and all the details and stuff, but it suddenly loses all its subjectivity with this definition. As soon as you begin to attribute qualities that are dependent on the observer you're making a subjective observation. If we didn't exist black holes would still exist but there would be no one to think that they're cool. If we didn't exist there would be no declarations of cool or uncool, good or bad, right or wrong, etc things would simply be. For this reason any such declaration is by definition subjective. You cannot have an objective opinion, you either state an objective fact or you state a subjective opinion. Morals and ethics are matters of opinion, the world we live in demonstrates this clearly. Even if one day we all agree on matters of morality, which would be great, it would simply be a collective subjective agreement rather than an objective truth. You can't just dictate that "morals and ethics are a matter of opinion," because that's the whole discussion we're having. As I said, I think this is a definition dispute. I don't think this is a real argument. I don't agree on your definition of good and bad and I don't agree with your definition of morality as simply personal preference. I use the fact that people try to enforce their morality on others all the time as evidence that your definition is not the one that people use. The best way to get around definition disputes is to simply use different words. So let me ask you a different question: Regardless of your opinion of morality, do you think the 'optimization of human well-being' is objective? Do you think something like that could be objective?
What exactly don't you agree with?
USA thinks capital punishment is morally right, UK thinks it's morally wrong. You have a problem with that? Do you think there's an objective truth about whether capital punishment is right or wrong?
Optimal well-being or minimal suffering, however you want to put it... I don't know.
|
On July 28 2013 11:01 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 10:33 DoubleReed wrote:On July 28 2013 09:11 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 08:47 DoubleReed wrote:On July 28 2013 08:41 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 08:29 DoubleReed wrote:
I'm confused, Reason. You can have objectively bad things, especially if you're a consequentialist. Something is bad if it has bad consequences. And you define bad consequences as by its relation to human well-being. I might not have a perfect understanding of human well-being, but that's a problem with me, not human well-being.
Cutting off a dude's arm isn't a subjective thing. The arm is a real thing, being cut off. It shoots real electricity through somebody's nerves, and stuff like that. There's nothing subjective there. And if that arm had gangrene then it was hopefully worth it to save the dude's life. But I don't see where subjectivity fits into it.
I don't like the word "wrong" because it conflates incorrectness with badness, which are completely different. And it can cause you to be confrontational when you are just trying to correct somebody. Something is bad if it has bad consequences? Bad for who? It's subjective. It's bad for the dude getting his arm cut off, he's in a lot of pain. Guess what? I'm a sick fuck that enjoys cutting off arms and I'm getting loads of pleasure from this. From my subjective perspective it's not bad, it's awesome. Objectively? It's neither good nor bad. It's simply happening. It's a matter of perspective. It's subjective. + Show Spoiler +No dudes were harmed in the making of this post and the opinions expressed within do not necessarily reflect those of the author. I wonder how you define morality. Because it's not an easy word to define. If it's subjective, then I would think it impossible for people to say to other people that their actions are wrong, but in fact, people do this all the time. This just doesn't seem to fit the definition of morality that people actually use. Yes, under a subjective view of morality, then this is perfectly valid. But that, as far as I've seen, is simply not what people mean by morality. If they did, then people would not call other people immoral or bad. It encompasses more than just personal preferences. The best definition I've seen for what people actually mean by morality is the "optimization of human well-being." Now we can disagree on what "human well-being" means and all the details and stuff, but it suddenly loses all its subjectivity with this definition. As soon as you begin to attribute qualities that are dependent on the observer you're making a subjective observation. If we didn't exist black holes would still exist but there would be no one to think that they're cool. If we didn't exist there would be no declarations of cool or uncool, good or bad, right or wrong, etc things would simply be. For this reason any such declaration is by definition subjective. You cannot have an objective opinion, you either state an objective fact or you state a subjective opinion. Morals and ethics are matters of opinion, the world we live in demonstrates this clearly. Even if one day we all agree on matters of morality, which would be great, it would simply be a collective subjective agreement rather than an objective truth. You can't just dictate that "morals and ethics are a matter of opinion," because that's the whole discussion we're having. As I said, I think this is a definition dispute. I don't think this is a real argument. I don't agree on your definition of good and bad and I don't agree with your definition of morality as simply personal preference. I use the fact that people try to enforce their morality on others all the time as evidence that your definition is not the one that people use. The best way to get around definition disputes is to simply use different words. So let me ask you a different question: Regardless of your opinion of morality, do you think the 'optimization of human well-being' is objective? Do you think something like that could be objective? What exactly don't you agree with? USA thinks capital punishment is morally right, UK thinks it's morally wrong. You have a problem with that? Do you think there's an objective truth about whether capital punishment is right or wrong? Optimal well-being or minimal suffering, however you want to put it... I don't know.
Some people think that all animals have a common ancestor. Some people don't.
This does not say that evolution is subjective. This is saying that people have different information, different experiences, and arrive at different conclusions for the same question.
Laws like capital punishment are trying to approximate morality. Like we do with everything, we do the best we can with what we have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
