|
On July 28 2013 22:21 Shival wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 22:14 GreenGringo wrote:On July 28 2013 22:08 Shival wrote:
Can't you both stop the discussion? You're discussing from both two very valid points of view. One is arguing from moral realism, the other (as in you Reason) is arguing from Error Theory, Moral relativsm or moral anti-realism. Can't really point out which. It's pretty comical that you don't realize how grotesquely out of place this is. If we had a thread on Christian parents homeschooling their kids and teaching them creationism, everyone would say without reservation that these are bad parents, and most would agree that they don't have the right to keep their children ignorant. Nobody would even DREAM of debating meta-ethics. Yet when we have a thread about parents with brown skin, there's no limit to how "nuanced" and how "sophisticated" people are prepared to get. One standard for white people doing something objectionable; brown people doing something objectionable makes us cast doubt on the very concept of right and wrong. This is the most extreme double standard in the history of double standards. You? I'm calling to stop the discussion. It's quite comical that you don't notice that. Why? Intimidated on an intellectual level, perhaps? It's very odd that you wouldn't respond to a substantive point merely because of the person posting. Serious people don't do that.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On July 28 2013 20:54 Reason wrote:
You're thinking about slavery from the slaves point of view, and you're declaring it wrong. That's good, that's what I do do, but I'm still capable of acknowledging that it's not objectively "right or wrong".
Of or having to do with a material object.
Having actual existence or reality.
Something that actually exists.
Like I said, blackholes exist is an objective statement.
Blackholes are cool is subjective.
Slavery isn't objectively wrong, no object or event has such qualities. Right and wrong don't actually exist, they have nothing to do with the physical universe. Right wrong, good bad, cool or sucky, these are all abtract human concepts that don't physically exist in the universe just like pizza isn't objectively tasty.
Interestingly enough, even modern physics itself argues about objectivity. There are experiments in quantum physics, that bring opposite results (which they objectively shouldn't) depending on how you set up the experiment, just as if the quantum particles would sort of "do what they are expected to do". Crazy stuff ...
After all - everything is subjective, even the universe, because WE are human, and the only way we can get information about it, is through our senses, even though we use instruments, that is filtered by our brain. We always have expectations, and the questions we ask (f.e. a scientist) is always influenced by culture etc.
That all is a nice philosophical debate. The question is - how does it help when we discuss such a specific topic like FGM? Why does it get so intellectualized? Are we looking for excuses not to do sth. about it? Are we getting lost in philosophy when such horrible things happen?
Human Rights are being seen as universal. The vast majority of countries have signed them, most of those, where the practise of FGM exists, too. So, that is not objective, but as close to "collective consensus" as it can get. And a solid foundation to do something. (Even, if it wasn't, I feel in my heart, that cannot be right, and know inside, that cannot be something, someone actually would choose, if she were really free and had all the information about it. Subjectively? The mind says yes. But the heart knows, it's just true.)
There is a place to think and philosophy aobut things (and I really do like that a lot,too). But then there are times (and issues), to listen to your heart, and to act.
|
On July 28 2013 20:54 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 13:03 DoubleReed wrote:On July 28 2013 12:22 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 11:59 DoubleReed wrote:On July 28 2013 11:21 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 11:14 DoubleReed wrote:On July 28 2013 11:01 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 10:33 DoubleReed wrote:On July 28 2013 09:11 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 08:47 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
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. So is your answer yes? You do believe there is an objective truth as to whether capital punishment is right or wrong? I don't think equating historical fact with moral judgements supports or weakens any position on objective or subjective morality so I'm at a loss as to why you've drawn such an analogy. Not knowing the answer yet isn't the same as an answer not existing. I don't know why you're asking me a sweeping question like capital punishment. That's not a good example, because at the very least it would be incredibly highly specific to the cases. I would suggest coming up with a specific hypothetical or something. I don't understand why you wrote the last line, because that's totally what I was going to say to you. Why are you saying that because people disagree, that means the answer doesn't exist? This does not follow. People disagree on things that are objective all the time, like evolution. This has no bearing on the answer to the question. Considering that we used to see nothing wrong with slavery, it should not be expected that us humans just magically know the correct answer of how to best treat each other or enhance human well-being. We don't know the answer. But we do try to figure it out. And even if we aren't very good at figuring things out, we are very good are disagreeing with each other. So you think slavery is objectively wrong? Yes. Slavery is bad for human well-being. Principles of autonomy and freedom are important for people's happiness and things like that. Do you disagree with either of those statements? I already know your claim is that slavery is just slavery and has no objective value judgement, because you're using a different definition. If you can't even say that slavery is wrong, then don't you think your version of morality is totally useless? Sure I agree with both of those statements. Slavery is wrong, sure, according to my own personal moral code and according to most civilized people nowadays but it's not objectively wrong. I'm not sure what definition you're using but I can write quite a bit about why slavery is good, but it's not from the perspective of the slave. You're thinking about slavery from the slaves point of view, and you're declaring it wrong. That's good, that's what I do do, but I'm still capable of acknowledging that it's not objectively "right or wrong". Of or having to do with a material object. Having actual existence or reality. Something that actually exists. Like I said, blackholes exist is an objective statement. Blackholes are cool is subjective. Slavery isn't objectively wrong, no object or event has such qualities. Right and wrong don't actually exist, they have nothing to do with the physical universe. Right wrong, good bad, cool or sucky, these are all abtract human concepts that don't physically exist in the universe just like pizza isn't objectively tasty. It's subjectively tasty as exerienced by the majority of humans. You seem to be complaining about my definition of morality when the problem here is that the definition of objective literally cannot apply to subjective and abstract human concepts such as morals and ethics. You asked my what my definition of morality is? Here's the first paragraph from wikipedia. Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong). The philosophy of morality is ethics. A moral code is a system of morality (according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) Do you see the bolded part? It's literally part of the definition of morality that it's dependent upon your religion, your culture or of your own philosophical stance among other things. Just because you've decided upon a system of ethics solely concerned with human well-being and minimisation of suffering and I happen to agree with you on that 100% does not mean that we are realising some innate objective truth about the universe. Right and wrong are abstract human concepts and morality is completely subjective.
Where did I take the slaves' point of view? I took the humanist point of view.
See, the wikipedia definition has the same problem. I don't know what that particularly means.
I'm not talking about innate objective truths about the universe. I'm talking about innate objective truths about human beings. This is what you're not understanding. It eventually all comes down to human biology, which is not subjective in the least.
To me, this is like saying that human biology tells us nothing about how to live our lives better or treat other people. Of course biology tells us these sort of things. To say that these are just "events happening" is simply ignoring the fact that biology exists and is objective. For some reason you consider emotions, pain, and suffering as subjective, even though it's just as real and physical as a brick. Physicalism has far-reaching consequences.
Just because people have opinions like 'solitary confinement isn't torture' or 'it doesn't have lasting effects on people' has no bearing on whether it actually does.
|
On July 28 2013 21:35 GreenGringo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 20:57 Rassy wrote:
Germany after ww2 didnt need a cultural revolution, their culture was on par with the cultures of the other western countrys around them (christian democracy) and thats why the marshal plan could work. The Marshal plan was important, but to represent this as the main reason for the de-Nazification process is wrong and bordering on propagandizing. The money amounted to about .5% of the US GDP and that was divided across all the European nations who accepted it. Not to mention that merely injecting cash only takes you so far (as we recently found out in the UK with Gordon Brown's bailout). The German people get the lion's share of the credit for rebuilding their own country. Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 17:04 [Agony]x90 wrote:
Anyways, as the article states, after WW1, Germany had to accept all the blame and were painted as the bad guys. After WW2, America initiated the Marshall Plan and essentially rebuilt Germany. . Too funny. This shit is unbelievable.
Well i actually looked it up lol and it was not 0.5% of usa gdp, it was 5% but a mistake in placing the dot is easily made so i will forgive you
Agree that the marshal plan was not the main force in building up germany, the main force where the germans themselves.
The marshal plan had limited influence, (half of the monney given was used to repay loans to mostly usa banks for example) but it still was important. It was not only monetairy aid, it was also technical aid and restructuring the european business to an american model wich was ahead in efficiency.
Japan got almost no help rebuilding their economy after ww2 and they did boom as well, though the japanse infrastructure didnt suffer nearly as much as the german one, since there was no war fought on their home soil.
|
What really makes me sick is seeing the statistics that say that a majority of women in a country actually favour being mutilated. For me, it opposes common sense in such a way that I am astounded by how potent the lack of education can be in terms of facilitating brainwashing and completely irrational behaviour. Also, it's about damn time that the international committee brought these practices down.
|
The amount of "what is objectivity?" argument that have happened here while I was away just for a day is astounding. I didn't come home expecting to read more about objectivity than FGM itself in this thread 
|
On July 28 2013 22:59 sorrowptoss wrote:
What really makes me sick is seeing the statistics that say that a majority of women in a country actually favour being mutilated. For me, it opposes common sense in such a way that I am astounded by how potent the lack of education can be in terms of facilitating brainwashing and completely irrational behaviour. Also, it's about damn time that the international committee brought these practices down.
welcome to third world countries!
|
On July 28 2013 22:49 DoubleReed wrote:
Where did I take the slaves' point of view? I took the humanist point of view.
See, the wikipedia definition has the same problem. I don't know what that particularly means.
I'm not talking about innate objective truths about the universe. I'm talking about innate objective truths about human beings. This is what you're not understanding. It eventually all comes down to human biology, which is not subjective in the least.
To me, this is like saying that human biology tells us nothing about how to live our lives better or treat other people. Of course biology tells us these sort of things. To say that these are just "events happening" is simply ignoring the fact that biology exists and is objective. For some reason you consider emotions, pain, and suffering as subjective, even though it's just as real and physical as a brick.
I tend to agree with you, great points, want to add a few!
Who tells us, only the things that can be measured (the universe, physics, natural science) are true? That in itself is an ideology that can be explained as a modern western culture (rooted in the Age of Rationalism etc.) and has a historic context. While I do think, it has a lot of great benefits, reducing the world (or "objectivity") only to matter, to what can be measured, hurts the world and humans, because we are just so much more.
I wouldn't even call it biology, but I agree, with what you mean. There is an objectivity of a mother, loving her child, that is cross-cultural. People not wanting to die or suffer torture or pain. There is a human nature, even though it is hard to grasp.
Even if from a philosophical point of view, somehow it can be argued, it may not be "objective" - just what is the point to state that? It is frigging wrong, the vast majority (of world population, and the states) feels like that, and it feels disrespectful of those, who suffer so much, to "use" this for a highly intellectualized debate.
|
|
|
On July 28 2013 23:02 Orek wrote:The amount of "what is objectivity?" argument that have happened here while I was away just for a day is astounding. I didn't come home expecting to read more about objectivity than FGM itself in this thread
It's simple, the topic is not interesting enough that we can feed the discussion with only FGM stuff.
Either the thread dies off, or we talk about metaethics.
:D
But seriously, everybody has said how outraged they are and that FGM should stop eventually. You really can't expect much more discussional material than that.
|
On July 28 2013 22:49 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 20:54 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 13:03 DoubleReed wrote:On July 28 2013 12:22 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 11:59 DoubleReed wrote:On July 28 2013 11:21 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 11:14 DoubleReed wrote:On July 28 2013 11:01 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 10:33 DoubleReed wrote:On July 28 2013 09:11 Reason wrote:
[quote]
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. So is your answer yes? You do believe there is an objective truth as to whether capital punishment is right or wrong? I don't think equating historical fact with moral judgements supports or weakens any position on objective or subjective morality so I'm at a loss as to why you've drawn such an analogy. Not knowing the answer yet isn't the same as an answer not existing. I don't know why you're asking me a sweeping question like capital punishment. That's not a good example, because at the very least it would be incredibly highly specific to the cases. I would suggest coming up with a specific hypothetical or something. I don't understand why you wrote the last line, because that's totally what I was going to say to you. Why are you saying that because people disagree, that means the answer doesn't exist? This does not follow. People disagree on things that are objective all the time, like evolution. This has no bearing on the answer to the question. Considering that we used to see nothing wrong with slavery, it should not be expected that us humans just magically know the correct answer of how to best treat each other or enhance human well-being. We don't know the answer. But we do try to figure it out. And even if we aren't very good at figuring things out, we are very good are disagreeing with each other. So you think slavery is objectively wrong? Yes. Slavery is bad for human well-being. Principles of autonomy and freedom are important for people's happiness and things like that. Do you disagree with either of those statements? I already know your claim is that slavery is just slavery and has no objective value judgement, because you're using a different definition. If you can't even say that slavery is wrong, then don't you think your version of morality is totally useless? Sure I agree with both of those statements. Slavery is wrong, sure, according to my own personal moral code and according to most civilized people nowadays but it's not objectively wrong. I'm not sure what definition you're using but I can write quite a bit about why slavery is good, but it's not from the perspective of the slave. You're thinking about slavery from the slaves point of view, and you're declaring it wrong. That's good, that's what I do do, but I'm still capable of acknowledging that it's not objectively "right or wrong". Of or having to do with a material object. Having actual existence or reality. Something that actually exists. Like I said, blackholes exist is an objective statement. Blackholes are cool is subjective. Slavery isn't objectively wrong, no object or event has such qualities. Right and wrong don't actually exist, they have nothing to do with the physical universe. Right wrong, good bad, cool or sucky, these are all abtract human concepts that don't physically exist in the universe just like pizza isn't objectively tasty. It's subjectively tasty as exerienced by the majority of humans. You seem to be complaining about my definition of morality when the problem here is that the definition of objective literally cannot apply to subjective and abstract human concepts such as morals and ethics. You asked my what my definition of morality is? Here's the first paragraph from wikipedia. Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong). The philosophy of morality is ethics. A moral code is a system of morality (according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) Do you see the bolded part? It's literally part of the definition of morality that it's dependent upon your religion, your culture or of your own philosophical stance among other things. Just because you've decided upon a system of ethics solely concerned with human well-being and minimisation of suffering and I happen to agree with you on that 100% does not mean that we are realising some innate objective truth about the universe. Right and wrong are abstract human concepts and morality is completely subjective. Where did I take the slaves' point of view? I took the humanist point of view. See, the wikipedia definition has the same problem. I don't know what that particularly means. I'm not talking about innate objective truths about the universe. I'm talking about innate objective truths about human beings. This is what you're not understanding. It eventually all comes down to human biology, which is not subjective in the least. To me, this is like saying that human biology tells us nothing about how to live our lives better or treat other people. Of course biology tells us these sort of things. To say that these are just "events happening" is simply ignoring the fact that biology exists and is objective. For some reason you consider emotions, pain, and suffering as subjective, even though it's just as real and physical as a brick.
Okay, you're taking the humanist point of view. This is rational, logical, compassionate and I agree with creating a moral code around minimising suffering but this does not make the creation of such a moral code objective, far from it.
Is it wrong when a lion hunts a gazelle? It's morally right from the perspective of the lion because it needs to eat to survive. It's morally wrong from the perspective of the gazelle because it needs to not be eaten to survive. Objectively, which means without bias, it's neither right nor wrong, it's just a lion hunting a gazelle.
You are biased as a human being to say that right and wrong should be dictated purely by how it affects us humans. I don't disagree with you that it's a good idea, because I'm also a human, but it's not objective. We are biased in our belief that right and wrong should reflect our own interests, much like the lion and the gazelle. Bias /= objective.
On July 28 2013 23:06 quonzoran wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 22:49 DoubleReed wrote:
Where did I take the slaves' point of view? I took the humanist point of view.
See, the wikipedia definition has the same problem. I don't know what that particularly means.
I'm not talking about innate objective truths about the universe. I'm talking about innate objective truths about human beings. This is what you're not understanding. It eventually all comes down to human biology, which is not subjective in the least.
To me, this is like saying that human biology tells us nothing about how to live our lives better or treat other people. Of course biology tells us these sort of things. To say that these are just "events happening" is simply ignoring the fact that biology exists and is objective. For some reason you consider emotions, pain, and suffering as subjective, even though it's just as real and physical as a brick. I tend to agree with you, great points, want to add a few! Who tells us, only the things that can be measured (the universe, physics, natural science) are true? That in itself is an ideology that can be explained as a modern western culture (rooted in the Age of Rationalism etc.) and has a historic context. While I do think, it has a lot of great benefits, reducing the world (or "objectivity") only to matter, to what can be measured, hurts the world and humans, because we are just so much more. I wouldn't even call it biology, but I agree, with what you mean. There is an objectivity of a mother, loving her child, that is cross-cultural. People not wanting to die or suffer torture or pain. There is a human nature, even though it is hard to grasp. Even if from a philosophical point of view, somehow it can be argued, it may not be "objective" - just what is the point to state that? It is frigging wrong, the vast majority (of world population, and the states) feels like that, and it feels disrespectful of those, who suffer so much, to "use" this for a highly intellectualized debate.
There's no real point in stating that it's not objective apart from when somebody says X is objectively wrong when that doesn't actually make sense. Right and wrong are human concepts and we dictate through our own bias what is right and wrong, that's the definition of subjective.
As I stated earlier, FGM is abhorrent and should stop and just because it is not objectively wrong (nothing is) doesn't change a damn thing. I mean no disrespect towards those who have suffered from this and I hope it fades into the past sooner rather than later.
|
On July 28 2013 23:17 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 22:49 DoubleReed wrote:On July 28 2013 20:54 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 13:03 DoubleReed wrote:On July 28 2013 12:22 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 11:59 DoubleReed wrote:On July 28 2013 11:21 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 11:14 DoubleReed wrote:On July 28 2013 11:01 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 10:33 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
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. So is your answer yes? You do believe there is an objective truth as to whether capital punishment is right or wrong? I don't think equating historical fact with moral judgements supports or weakens any position on objective or subjective morality so I'm at a loss as to why you've drawn such an analogy. Not knowing the answer yet isn't the same as an answer not existing. I don't know why you're asking me a sweeping question like capital punishment. That's not a good example, because at the very least it would be incredibly highly specific to the cases. I would suggest coming up with a specific hypothetical or something. I don't understand why you wrote the last line, because that's totally what I was going to say to you. Why are you saying that because people disagree, that means the answer doesn't exist? This does not follow. People disagree on things that are objective all the time, like evolution. This has no bearing on the answer to the question. Considering that we used to see nothing wrong with slavery, it should not be expected that us humans just magically know the correct answer of how to best treat each other or enhance human well-being. We don't know the answer. But we do try to figure it out. And even if we aren't very good at figuring things out, we are very good are disagreeing with each other. So you think slavery is objectively wrong? Yes. Slavery is bad for human well-being. Principles of autonomy and freedom are important for people's happiness and things like that. Do you disagree with either of those statements? I already know your claim is that slavery is just slavery and has no objective value judgement, because you're using a different definition. If you can't even say that slavery is wrong, then don't you think your version of morality is totally useless? Sure I agree with both of those statements. Slavery is wrong, sure, according to my own personal moral code and according to most civilized people nowadays but it's not objectively wrong. I'm not sure what definition you're using but I can write quite a bit about why slavery is good, but it's not from the perspective of the slave. You're thinking about slavery from the slaves point of view, and you're declaring it wrong. That's good, that's what I do do, but I'm still capable of acknowledging that it's not objectively "right or wrong". Of or having to do with a material object. Having actual existence or reality. Something that actually exists. Like I said, blackholes exist is an objective statement. Blackholes are cool is subjective. Slavery isn't objectively wrong, no object or event has such qualities. Right and wrong don't actually exist, they have nothing to do with the physical universe. Right wrong, good bad, cool or sucky, these are all abtract human concepts that don't physically exist in the universe just like pizza isn't objectively tasty. It's subjectively tasty as exerienced by the majority of humans. You seem to be complaining about my definition of morality when the problem here is that the definition of objective literally cannot apply to subjective and abstract human concepts such as morals and ethics. You asked my what my definition of morality is? Here's the first paragraph from wikipedia. Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong). The philosophy of morality is ethics. A moral code is a system of morality (according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) Do you see the bolded part? It's literally part of the definition of morality that it's dependent upon your religion, your culture or of your own philosophical stance among other things. Just because you've decided upon a system of ethics solely concerned with human well-being and minimisation of suffering and I happen to agree with you on that 100% does not mean that we are realising some innate objective truth about the universe. Right and wrong are abstract human concepts and morality is completely subjective. Where did I take the slaves' point of view? I took the humanist point of view. See, the wikipedia definition has the same problem. I don't know what that particularly means. I'm not talking about innate objective truths about the universe. I'm talking about innate objective truths about human beings. This is what you're not understanding. It eventually all comes down to human biology, which is not subjective in the least. To me, this is like saying that human biology tells us nothing about how to live our lives better or treat other people. Of course biology tells us these sort of things. To say that these are just "events happening" is simply ignoring the fact that biology exists and is objective. For some reason you consider emotions, pain, and suffering as subjective, even though it's just as real and physical as a brick. Okay, you're taking the humanist point of view. This is rational, logical and I agree with creating a moral code around minimising suffering but this does not make the creation of such a moral code objective, far from it. Is it wrong when a lion hunts a gazelle? It's morally right from the perspective of the lion because it needs to eat to survive. It's morally wrong from the perspective of the gazelle because it needs to not be eaten to survive. Objectively, which means without bias, it's neither right nor wrong, it's just a lion hunting a gazelle. You are biased as a human being to say that right and wrong should be dictated purely by how it affects us humans. I don't disagree with you that it's a good idea, because I'm also a human, but it's not objective. We are biased in our belief that right and wrong should reflect our own interests, much like the lion and the gazelle. Bias /= objective.
Right, it is objective with respect to human beings, not the universe.
|
On July 28 2013 23:22 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 23:17 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 22:49 DoubleReed wrote:On July 28 2013 20:54 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 13:03 DoubleReed wrote:On July 28 2013 12:22 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 11:59 DoubleReed wrote:On July 28 2013 11:21 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 11:14 DoubleReed wrote:On July 28 2013 11:01 Reason wrote:
[quote]
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. So is your answer yes? You do believe there is an objective truth as to whether capital punishment is right or wrong? I don't think equating historical fact with moral judgements supports or weakens any position on objective or subjective morality so I'm at a loss as to why you've drawn such an analogy. Not knowing the answer yet isn't the same as an answer not existing. I don't know why you're asking me a sweeping question like capital punishment. That's not a good example, because at the very least it would be incredibly highly specific to the cases. I would suggest coming up with a specific hypothetical or something. I don't understand why you wrote the last line, because that's totally what I was going to say to you. Why are you saying that because people disagree, that means the answer doesn't exist? This does not follow. People disagree on things that are objective all the time, like evolution. This has no bearing on the answer to the question. Considering that we used to see nothing wrong with slavery, it should not be expected that us humans just magically know the correct answer of how to best treat each other or enhance human well-being. We don't know the answer. But we do try to figure it out. And even if we aren't very good at figuring things out, we are very good are disagreeing with each other. So you think slavery is objectively wrong? Yes. Slavery is bad for human well-being. Principles of autonomy and freedom are important for people's happiness and things like that. Do you disagree with either of those statements? I already know your claim is that slavery is just slavery and has no objective value judgement, because you're using a different definition. If you can't even say that slavery is wrong, then don't you think your version of morality is totally useless? Sure I agree with both of those statements. Slavery is wrong, sure, according to my own personal moral code and according to most civilized people nowadays but it's not objectively wrong. I'm not sure what definition you're using but I can write quite a bit about why slavery is good, but it's not from the perspective of the slave. You're thinking about slavery from the slaves point of view, and you're declaring it wrong. That's good, that's what I do do, but I'm still capable of acknowledging that it's not objectively "right or wrong". Of or having to do with a material object. Having actual existence or reality. Something that actually exists. Like I said, blackholes exist is an objective statement. Blackholes are cool is subjective. Slavery isn't objectively wrong, no object or event has such qualities. Right and wrong don't actually exist, they have nothing to do with the physical universe. Right wrong, good bad, cool or sucky, these are all abtract human concepts that don't physically exist in the universe just like pizza isn't objectively tasty. It's subjectively tasty as exerienced by the majority of humans. You seem to be complaining about my definition of morality when the problem here is that the definition of objective literally cannot apply to subjective and abstract human concepts such as morals and ethics. You asked my what my definition of morality is? Here's the first paragraph from wikipedia. Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong). The philosophy of morality is ethics. A moral code is a system of morality (according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) Do you see the bolded part? It's literally part of the definition of morality that it's dependent upon your religion, your culture or of your own philosophical stance among other things. Just because you've decided upon a system of ethics solely concerned with human well-being and minimisation of suffering and I happen to agree with you on that 100% does not mean that we are realising some innate objective truth about the universe. Right and wrong are abstract human concepts and morality is completely subjective. Where did I take the slaves' point of view? I took the humanist point of view. See, the wikipedia definition has the same problem. I don't know what that particularly means. I'm not talking about innate objective truths about the universe. I'm talking about innate objective truths about human beings. This is what you're not understanding. It eventually all comes down to human biology, which is not subjective in the least. To me, this is like saying that human biology tells us nothing about how to live our lives better or treat other people. Of course biology tells us these sort of things. To say that these are just "events happening" is simply ignoring the fact that biology exists and is objective. For some reason you consider emotions, pain, and suffering as subjective, even though it's just as real and physical as a brick. Okay, you're taking the humanist point of view. This is rational, logical and I agree with creating a moral code around minimising suffering but this does not make the creation of such a moral code objective, far from it. Is it wrong when a lion hunts a gazelle? It's morally right from the perspective of the lion because it needs to eat to survive. It's morally wrong from the perspective of the gazelle because it needs to not be eaten to survive. Objectively, which means without bias, it's neither right nor wrong, it's just a lion hunting a gazelle. You are biased as a human being to say that right and wrong should be dictated purely by how it affects us humans. I don't disagree with you that it's a good idea, because I'm also a human, but it's not objective. We are biased in our belief that right and wrong should reflect our own interests, much like the lion and the gazelle. Bias /= objective. Right, it is objective with respect to human beings, not the universe.
Yeah but the statement "objective with respect to" equates to "subjective". That's my point. If it's "with respect to X" then you're introducing bias. I'm not saying once you create a moral framework around minimising suffering that you can't then use objective truths to dictate what is right and wrong, but the initial creation of such a framework is not without bias and therefore I don't think anything can be truly said to be "objectively wrong".
You can say "once we all agree upon X" that "Y is objectively wrong" but the decision to agree upon X is not objective therefore Y is not actually objectively wrong. That's all I've been trying to say.
Edit: Amending quote to match your own editing
|
Is it wrong when a lion hunts a gazelle? It's morally right from the perspective of the lion because it needs to eat to survive. It's morally wrong from the perspective of the gazelle because it needs to not be eaten to survive. Objectively, which means without bias, it's neither right nor wrong, it's just a lion hunting a gazelle.
It's not morally right/wrong from the perspective of the lion/gazelle, because neither animal possesses human-level sapience, neither animal makes informed, abstract decisions, and neither animal is capable of even conceiving of anything like morality.
Things are morally right or wrong insofar as they refer to actions (or hypothetical actions) taken by moral agents. Lions, gazelles, rocks, trees, axolotls...these are not moral agents for the same reasons that infants aren't moral agents. Why? Because every moral system I've ever seen proposed has included a clause about the ability to make informed choices.
|
If we try to borrow morality from the animal kingdom, it's not particularly bad to kill and eat your child. Let's not dick about with that
|
On July 28 2013 23:26 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 23:22 DoubleReed wrote:On July 28 2013 23:17 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 22:49 DoubleReed wrote:On July 28 2013 20:54 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 13:03 DoubleReed wrote:On July 28 2013 12:22 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 11:59 DoubleReed wrote:On July 28 2013 11:21 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 11:14 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
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. So is your answer yes? You do believe there is an objective truth as to whether capital punishment is right or wrong? I don't think equating historical fact with moral judgements supports or weakens any position on objective or subjective morality so I'm at a loss as to why you've drawn such an analogy. Not knowing the answer yet isn't the same as an answer not existing. I don't know why you're asking me a sweeping question like capital punishment. That's not a good example, because at the very least it would be incredibly highly specific to the cases. I would suggest coming up with a specific hypothetical or something. I don't understand why you wrote the last line, because that's totally what I was going to say to you. Why are you saying that because people disagree, that means the answer doesn't exist? This does not follow. People disagree on things that are objective all the time, like evolution. This has no bearing on the answer to the question. Considering that we used to see nothing wrong with slavery, it should not be expected that us humans just magically know the correct answer of how to best treat each other or enhance human well-being. We don't know the answer. But we do try to figure it out. And even if we aren't very good at figuring things out, we are very good are disagreeing with each other. So you think slavery is objectively wrong? Yes. Slavery is bad for human well-being. Principles of autonomy and freedom are important for people's happiness and things like that. Do you disagree with either of those statements? I already know your claim is that slavery is just slavery and has no objective value judgement, because you're using a different definition. If you can't even say that slavery is wrong, then don't you think your version of morality is totally useless? Sure I agree with both of those statements. Slavery is wrong, sure, according to my own personal moral code and according to most civilized people nowadays but it's not objectively wrong. I'm not sure what definition you're using but I can write quite a bit about why slavery is good, but it's not from the perspective of the slave. You're thinking about slavery from the slaves point of view, and you're declaring it wrong. That's good, that's what I do do, but I'm still capable of acknowledging that it's not objectively "right or wrong". Of or having to do with a material object. Having actual existence or reality. Something that actually exists. Like I said, blackholes exist is an objective statement. Blackholes are cool is subjective. Slavery isn't objectively wrong, no object or event has such qualities. Right and wrong don't actually exist, they have nothing to do with the physical universe. Right wrong, good bad, cool or sucky, these are all abtract human concepts that don't physically exist in the universe just like pizza isn't objectively tasty. It's subjectively tasty as exerienced by the majority of humans. You seem to be complaining about my definition of morality when the problem here is that the definition of objective literally cannot apply to subjective and abstract human concepts such as morals and ethics. You asked my what my definition of morality is? Here's the first paragraph from wikipedia. Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong). The philosophy of morality is ethics. A moral code is a system of morality (according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) Do you see the bolded part? It's literally part of the definition of morality that it's dependent upon your religion, your culture or of your own philosophical stance among other things. Just because you've decided upon a system of ethics solely concerned with human well-being and minimisation of suffering and I happen to agree with you on that 100% does not mean that we are realising some innate objective truth about the universe. Right and wrong are abstract human concepts and morality is completely subjective. Where did I take the slaves' point of view? I took the humanist point of view. See, the wikipedia definition has the same problem. I don't know what that particularly means. I'm not talking about innate objective truths about the universe. I'm talking about innate objective truths about human beings. This is what you're not understanding. It eventually all comes down to human biology, which is not subjective in the least. To me, this is like saying that human biology tells us nothing about how to live our lives better or treat other people. Of course biology tells us these sort of things. To say that these are just "events happening" is simply ignoring the fact that biology exists and is objective. For some reason you consider emotions, pain, and suffering as subjective, even though it's just as real and physical as a brick. Okay, you're taking the humanist point of view. This is rational, logical and I agree with creating a moral code around minimising suffering but this does not make the creation of such a moral code objective, far from it. Is it wrong when a lion hunts a gazelle? It's morally right from the perspective of the lion because it needs to eat to survive. It's morally wrong from the perspective of the gazelle because it needs to not be eaten to survive. Objectively, which means without bias, it's neither right nor wrong, it's just a lion hunting a gazelle. You are biased as a human being to say that right and wrong should be dictated purely by how it affects us humans. I don't disagree with you that it's a good idea, because I'm also a human, but it's not objective. We are biased in our belief that right and wrong should reflect our own interests, much like the lion and the gazelle. Bias /= objective. Right, it is objective with respect to human beings, not the universe. Yeah but the statement "objective with respect to" equates to "subjective". That's my point. If it's "with respect to X" then you're introducing bias. I'm not saying once you create a moral framework around minimising suffering that you can't then use objective truths to dictate what is right and wrong, but the initial creation of such a framework is not without bias and therefore I don't think anything can be truly said to be "objectively wrong". You can say "once we all agree upon X" that "Y is objectively wrong" but the decision to agree upon X is not objective therefore Y is not actually objectively wrong. That's all I've been trying to say. Edit: Amending quote to match your own editing
You're always objective with respect to something, though. I mean gravity isn't objectively true with respect to dreams. Or Broodlords.
Saying "objective with respect to human beings" is pretty damn good.
|
On July 28 2013 23:30 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +Is it wrong when a lion hunts a gazelle? It's morally right from the perspective of the lion because it needs to eat to survive. It's morally wrong from the perspective of the gazelle because it needs to not be eaten to survive. Objectively, which means without bias, it's neither right nor wrong, it's just a lion hunting a gazelle. It's not morally right/wrong from the perspective of the lion/gazelle, because neither animal possesses human-level sapience, neither animal makes informed, abstract decisions, and neither animal is capable of even conceiving of anything like morality. Things are morally right or wrong insofar as they refer to actions (or hypothetical actions) taken by moral agents. Lions, gazelles, rocks, trees, axolotls...these are not moral agents for the same reasons that infants aren't moral agents. Why? Because every moral system I've ever seen proposed has included a clause about the ability to make informed choices.
You are technically correct, of course, but it was merely an analogy. No need to deconstruct it in such a literal fashion.
On July 28 2013 23:32 Djzapz wrote:If we try to borrow morality from the animal kingdom, it's not particularly bad to kill and eat your child. Let's not dick about with that
I wasn't suggesting we do that lol I was just demonstrating how such beliefs are subjective on the part of the observer and not objective truths.
|
I wasn't suggesting we do that lol I was just demonstrating how such beliefs are subjective on the part of the observer and not objective truths.
All beliefs are subjective. That doesn't mean they're true or false. It just means that they're inevitably processed by a mind.
|
On July 28 2013 23:38 Reason wrote:I wasn't suggesting we do that lol I was just demonstrating how such beliefs are subjective on the part of the observer and not objective truths.
Yeah I was kind of kidding ^_^
|
On July 28 2013 23:39 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +I wasn't suggesting we do that lol I was just demonstrating how such beliefs are subjective on the part of the observer and not objective truths. All beliefs are subjective. That doesn't mean they're true or false. It just means that they're inevitably processed by a mind.
I don't think that helps at all.... Is the belief that 1+1 = 2 subjective rather than an objective truth simply because it's something processed by the human mind? Using the word belief implies it's not a fact. If it's not a fact but rather an opinion then of course it's subjective, just like the opinion that FGM is wrong is subjective, and one which I hold due to my moral framework centering around well-being and minimisation of suffering.
On July 28 2013 23:37 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 23:26 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 23:22 DoubleReed wrote:On July 28 2013 23:17 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 22:49 DoubleReed wrote:On July 28 2013 20:54 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 13:03 DoubleReed wrote:On July 28 2013 12:22 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 11:59 DoubleReed wrote:On July 28 2013 11:21 Reason wrote:
[quote]
So is your answer yes? You do believe there is an objective truth as to whether capital punishment is right or wrong?
I don't think equating historical fact with moral judgements supports or weakens any position on objective or subjective morality so I'm at a loss as to why you've drawn such an analogy.
Not knowing the answer yet isn't the same as an answer not existing. I don't know why you're asking me a sweeping question like capital punishment. That's not a good example, because at the very least it would be incredibly highly specific to the cases. I would suggest coming up with a specific hypothetical or something. I don't understand why you wrote the last line, because that's totally what I was going to say to you. Why are you saying that because people disagree, that means the answer doesn't exist? This does not follow. People disagree on things that are objective all the time, like evolution. This has no bearing on the answer to the question. Considering that we used to see nothing wrong with slavery, it should not be expected that us humans just magically know the correct answer of how to best treat each other or enhance human well-being. We don't know the answer. But we do try to figure it out. And even if we aren't very good at figuring things out, we are very good are disagreeing with each other. So you think slavery is objectively wrong? Yes. Slavery is bad for human well-being. Principles of autonomy and freedom are important for people's happiness and things like that. Do you disagree with either of those statements? I already know your claim is that slavery is just slavery and has no objective value judgement, because you're using a different definition. If you can't even say that slavery is wrong, then don't you think your version of morality is totally useless? Sure I agree with both of those statements. Slavery is wrong, sure, according to my own personal moral code and according to most civilized people nowadays but it's not objectively wrong. I'm not sure what definition you're using but I can write quite a bit about why slavery is good, but it's not from the perspective of the slave. You're thinking about slavery from the slaves point of view, and you're declaring it wrong. That's good, that's what I do do, but I'm still capable of acknowledging that it's not objectively "right or wrong". Of or having to do with a material object. Having actual existence or reality. Something that actually exists. Like I said, blackholes exist is an objective statement. Blackholes are cool is subjective. Slavery isn't objectively wrong, no object or event has such qualities. Right and wrong don't actually exist, they have nothing to do with the physical universe. Right wrong, good bad, cool or sucky, these are all abtract human concepts that don't physically exist in the universe just like pizza isn't objectively tasty. It's subjectively tasty as exerienced by the majority of humans. You seem to be complaining about my definition of morality when the problem here is that the definition of objective literally cannot apply to subjective and abstract human concepts such as morals and ethics. You asked my what my definition of morality is? Here's the first paragraph from wikipedia. Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong). The philosophy of morality is ethics. A moral code is a system of morality (according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) Do you see the bolded part? It's literally part of the definition of morality that it's dependent upon your religion, your culture or of your own philosophical stance among other things. Just because you've decided upon a system of ethics solely concerned with human well-being and minimisation of suffering and I happen to agree with you on that 100% does not mean that we are realising some innate objective truth about the universe. Right and wrong are abstract human concepts and morality is completely subjective. Where did I take the slaves' point of view? I took the humanist point of view. See, the wikipedia definition has the same problem. I don't know what that particularly means. I'm not talking about innate objective truths about the universe. I'm talking about innate objective truths about human beings. This is what you're not understanding. It eventually all comes down to human biology, which is not subjective in the least. To me, this is like saying that human biology tells us nothing about how to live our lives better or treat other people. Of course biology tells us these sort of things. To say that these are just "events happening" is simply ignoring the fact that biology exists and is objective. For some reason you consider emotions, pain, and suffering as subjective, even though it's just as real and physical as a brick. Okay, you're taking the humanist point of view. This is rational, logical and I agree with creating a moral code around minimising suffering but this does not make the creation of such a moral code objective, far from it. Is it wrong when a lion hunts a gazelle? It's morally right from the perspective of the lion because it needs to eat to survive. It's morally wrong from the perspective of the gazelle because it needs to not be eaten to survive. Objectively, which means without bias, it's neither right nor wrong, it's just a lion hunting a gazelle. You are biased as a human being to say that right and wrong should be dictated purely by how it affects us humans. I don't disagree with you that it's a good idea, because I'm also a human, but it's not objective. We are biased in our belief that right and wrong should reflect our own interests, much like the lion and the gazelle. Bias /= objective. Right, it is objective with respect to human beings, not the universe. Yeah but the statement "objective with respect to" equates to "subjective". That's my point. If it's "with respect to X" then you're introducing bias. I'm not saying once you create a moral framework around minimising suffering that you can't then use objective truths to dictate what is right and wrong, but the initial creation of such a framework is not without bias and therefore I don't think anything can be truly said to be "objectively wrong". You can say "once we all agree upon X" that "Y is objectively wrong" but the decision to agree upon X is not objective therefore Y is not actually objectively wrong. That's all I've been trying to say. Edit: Amending quote to match your own editing Saying "objective with respect to human beings" is pretty damn good.
Yes, agreed. It's good but not truly objective. Again that's all I'm saying.
To put this into context...
I wouldn't use the fact that FGM isn't objectively wrong (nothing is) to argue *for* FGM.
Rather, if you're saying "but FGM is just wrong man, it's fucking sick" and some wannabe-philosopher wants to start telling you that this is just your own moral code and that it's not objectively wrong and who are you Mr. Western Society to tell these enlightened and culturally rich people how to live their lives.... well then you tell them that since we've agreed our moral framework should be built around well-being and minimisation of suffering then yes it is fucking wrong and if they haven't the wisdom to create a similar code of ethics then perhaps we should try to educate them and just because it's not objectively true doesn't change a damn thing about how barbaric and unacceptable a practice this is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
