On July 29 2013 02:41 Shival wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 29 2013 01:07 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2013 00:57 Shival wrote:On July 29 2013 00:05 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 23:56 DoubleReed wrote:On July 28 2013 23:54 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 23:53 DoubleReed wrote: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. Ah. But my point of view is more optimistic of humanity. The reason that they perform FGM is not because they're a bunch of sick barbarians, but because they have incomplete, incorrect information and are subject to their own biases and logical fallacies. Like 99% of humanity, they're doing the best they can, and it just happens that the "best they can" is being a bunch of sick barbarians. I share this view and haven't stated anything to the contrary. Well fine then! Why don't we just AGREE and be really boring!? Meanie. Well I could just disagree with you for the sake of it but I almost never play devil's advocate especially when I agree with someone, besides Shival has called an end for this discussion and apparently I'm a blunt know-it-all with no manners so let's placate this crybaby who can't accept not everyone believes what he does without resorting to insults with our respective silences. In case you cannot remember, I've offered many times to just agree to disagree, pointing out that we each believe in another philosophical view. Instead I got that offer snubbed in my face. Now you're telling me that I'm incapable of accepting others for having a different view? In my honest opinion you should look at yourself first before blaming others, as the reality is quite its opposite, as in it's you that is incapable of accepting others for having a different view. Thanks for another ad hominem by the way, I'm glad you're once again showing your sense of humility. Agreeing to disagree means we no longer talk to each other and accept the other believes a different thing. What you actually did was call me blunt and claimed I had no manners and refused to talk to me further. You then called me a know it all when I was conversing with someone else. All I did was state my position and ask you to clarify yours. The only person resorting to ad hominem here is you. Do you want me to quote our entire conversation and prove this? 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. That was me offering you an olive branch before either of us went off the wrong track. You continued the discussion with: 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. That is simply ridiculous because we've been giving examples back and forth. Whether you agree with an example or disagree with a refuting of your example by me is not my problem. That is obvious to happen if we both have different, but both valid, view points. However, you cannot accept such a thing, thus you started belittling everything I've said so far. Going so far as saying I didn't give any reason as to why I didn't agree with your position. That is factually untrue, you simply didn't agree with what I gave as counter arguement, but I did voice one. You put doubt on my ability to convey a message through asking for greater clarity. (Not to mention saying: so until you actually communicate (ad hominem, implying I haven't properly communicated)) Which in my opinion is uncalled for, I could very well say the same thing to you, or put doubt in your ability to make sense of what I said. This is an attack on a person instead of merely asking for clarification because YOU didn't understand. Others in this thread have been very capable of understanding what I said. The entire tone of your message is simply offputting. Instead of accepting the olive branch, you decide to belittle what I've said before, and practically state your opinion is the right one. In extension of that you're practically saying that moral realism must be wrong. This in itself says that you're incapable of accepting that there may be other valid views. 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? Or maybe you simply don't understand that your philosophical view of morality isn't the only valid view. But instead of that you like to attack ones ability to convey a message, which can work both ways. Thus, I said I could say the same. 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. Then I finally responded by attacking you back, which in my opinion is very much called for. You were being blunt, and you were needlessly agressive and belittling in what you said, thus your manners. Agreeing to disagree means we no longer talk to each other and accept the other believes a different thing. Agreeing to disagree only works if we both agree on it. You however have shown you cannot. That I later on call you out on this by defining you a know-it-all is perfectly fine, because I only said I wouldn't explain myself further to you, I never said I refuse to talk to you again. I hope you don't mind me doing the quoting? That's the last I'm going to say on the matter in this thread as it's already highly off-topic, if you want to continue, PM me.
You really want to do this? Fine.
+ Show Spoiler +On July 28 2013 07:02 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 06:57 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:49 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 06:41 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:39 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 06:34 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:27 ZenithM wrote:You misunderstood my post. My question was "what can WE do?, rather than "WHAT can we do?". It's not our country, we don't have any control on legislation and education. So it is actually harder to grasp than you seem to think. In fact, I'll quote Mothra's informative link: There is nothing more difficult than persuading people to give up long-held cultural practices, especially those bound up in taboo subjects like sex. Fine, let me rephrase. Put external pressure on said government to provide legislation and education on the subject. Though, I don't really get your point, as you're constantly trying to say we should do nothing, simply because it's so damn hard to do anything. Guess we shouldn't have gone to the moon then... Lol, I never said that actually, re-read my posts if you want. My point is basically this one: On July 28 2013 02:42 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 02:42 docvoc wrote:On July 28 2013 02:23 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 00:25 KwarK wrote:On July 27 2013 23:52 xM(Z wrote:
[quote]
that winners don't need justification and that playing the vigilante card, is just disguised hypocrisy.
[quote]
ideological wars are the bloodiest and this is what we are doing here.
mine is right, yours is wrong so let's see who wins. Your argument is morally bankrupt, you are advocating the abdication of rational judgement, the thing that makes us better than animals, in favour of ideological passivity. You can bitch all you like about how it's all subjective and the winner decides what is normal and good but it's not true, maybe not everything I believe is right and true and good but I'm damn sure that my belief that you shouldn't cut off the clitoris of girls and sew their vaginas shut isn't one of them. Sure enough to impose my beliefs on others who disagree. People disagree all the time but that doesn't mean that there aren't right answers, it just means some people are dumb. What's worse than the dumb people though are people like you who have so little conviction that they'd rather see evil go on in front of them than take a stance, at least the dumb people don't know they're dumb, you claim to look at all the evidence and yet can't come to a conclusion. Assuming that every human being can use "Rational judgement" to come up with the same conclusion is flawed anyway. In those countries, they're not using the same premises as you so they won't get to the same conclusion (that "FGM is bad"). For example, over there religious dogma is much more powerful than in western countries and can be the basis for a "reasoned" argument ("God wants A, hence B" is perfectly fine), which is kind of inconceivable for you. So I agree with xMZ that in the end it comes down to a power struggle between cultures. If you want your "right thing" to prevail, fight and impose it on others. And btw, there isn't really anything to discuss or debate in this thread, I'm sure nobody here actually support the practice :D. Good OP nonetheless, informative at least. The fact here is that there is no real "actual right." This is all based on perception. Zenith, you are very right to point out cultural differences, I wasn't going to comment in this thread, but I have to quote your comment because of how on point it is. The U.N. exists in a Western way, whereas these countries don't. The differences because of this make us think the action is barbaric, which isn't the case for a lot of the people taking part in it. The process is slowly dying, for various reasons, and while I don't agree with it, we as westerners have no place telling other people that what they are doing is "objectively bad" even if we find the process detestable. True. And yet it must not prevent us from intervening if we think it's not right. It just won't be for the sake of doing the "objective right thing", that would be naive to think that way :D So, then you're a proponent of cultural imperialism? Instead of believing in moral realism? Either way, you're saying you think it should not hold us back to intervene. What then is your suggestion WE should do to intervene? Well, I don't know, haha (remember, "what now?" :D) but at least I'm aware of it. I just think that a lot of posters here don't know either. I posted here because I just didn't like when someone talked about science, reason and objectivity when this issue is really about culture, morality and ethics. Maybe I'm just arguing semantics here but I don't even think the sentence "This is objectively right/wrong" makes sense. That was me, among others maybe. This issue is about anything but culture. Culture has no say in matters when innocent lifes are being squashed . Science however shows that FGM is useless, and has harrowing effects on the women involved. That makes it objectively wrong. It makes it subjectively wrong from any rational perspective, but nothing is objectively wrong. Right and wrong are subjective value judgements, it's not right or wrong when a star goes supernova, it's not right or wrong when water evaporates, it simply is. It's not objectively wrong to murder innocent people in cold blood but every rational person holds the strong subjective belief that it is, so it's safe to say that it's "wrong". Maybe he was just arguing semantics, as he acknowledged, but saying something is "objectively wrong" doesn't actually make sense at all. In the first post, you state that since science says FGM is useless and has harrowing side effects on women that makes it objectively wrong. My first response to you is to say that it makes it subjectively wrong, not objectively wrong. Science doesn't make value judgements, people do. When explaining this you ignored my entire post and quoted a single line out of context, specifically "nothing is objectively wrong". On July 28 2013 07:03 Shival wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 07:02 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 06:57 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:49 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 06:41 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:39 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 06:34 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:27 ZenithM wrote:You misunderstood my post. My question was "what can WE do?, rather than "WHAT can we do?". It's not our country, we don't have any control on legislation and education. So it is actually harder to grasp than you seem to think. In fact, I'll quote Mothra's informative link: There is nothing more difficult than persuading people to give up long-held cultural practices, especially those bound up in taboo subjects like sex. Fine, let me rephrase. Put external pressure on said government to provide legislation and education on the subject. Though, I don't really get your point, as you're constantly trying to say we should do nothing, simply because it's so damn hard to do anything. Guess we shouldn't have gone to the moon then... Lol, I never said that actually, re-read my posts if you want. My point is basically this one: On July 28 2013 02:42 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 02:42 docvoc wrote:On July 28 2013 02:23 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 00:25 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Your argument is morally bankrupt, you are advocating the abdication of rational judgement, the thing that makes us better than animals, in favour of ideological passivity. You can bitch all you like about how it's all subjective and the winner decides what is normal and good but it's not true, maybe not everything I believe is right and true and good but I'm damn sure that my belief that you shouldn't cut off the clitoris of girls and sew their vaginas shut isn't one of them. Sure enough to impose my beliefs on others who disagree. People disagree all the time but that doesn't mean that there aren't right answers, it just means some people are dumb. What's worse than the dumb people though are people like you who have so little conviction that they'd rather see evil go on in front of them than take a stance, at least the dumb people don't know they're dumb, you claim to look at all the evidence and yet can't come to a conclusion. Assuming that every human being can use "Rational judgement" to come up with the same conclusion is flawed anyway. In those countries, they're not using the same premises as you so they won't get to the same conclusion (that "FGM is bad"). For example, over there religious dogma is much more powerful than in western countries and can be the basis for a "reasoned" argument ("God wants A, hence B" is perfectly fine), which is kind of inconceivable for you. So I agree with xMZ that in the end it comes down to a power struggle between cultures. If you want your "right thing" to prevail, fight and impose it on others. And btw, there isn't really anything to discuss or debate in this thread, I'm sure nobody here actually support the practice :D. Good OP nonetheless, informative at least. The fact here is that there is no real "actual right." This is all based on perception. Zenith, you are very right to point out cultural differences, I wasn't going to comment in this thread, but I have to quote your comment because of how on point it is. The U.N. exists in a Western way, whereas these countries don't. The differences because of this make us think the action is barbaric, which isn't the case for a lot of the people taking part in it. The process is slowly dying, for various reasons, and while I don't agree with it, we as westerners have no place telling other people that what they are doing is "objectively bad" even if we find the process detestable. True. And yet it must not prevent us from intervening if we think it's not right. It just won't be for the sake of doing the "objective right thing", that would be naive to think that way :D So, then you're a proponent of cultural imperialism? Instead of believing in moral realism? Either way, you're saying you think it should not hold us back to intervene. What then is your suggestion WE should do to intervene? Well, I don't know, haha (remember, "what now?" :D) but at least I'm aware of it. I just think that a lot of posters here don't know either. I posted here because I just didn't like when someone talked about science, reason and objectivity when this issue is really about culture, morality and ethics. Maybe I'm just arguing semantics here but I don't even think the sentence "This is objectively right/wrong" makes sense. That was me, among others maybe. This issue is about anything but culture. Culture has no say in matters when innocent lifes are being squashed. Science however shows that FGM is useless, and has harrowing effects on the women involved. That makes it objectively wrong. It makes it subjectively wrong from any rational perspective, but nothing is objectively wrong. Right and wrong are subjective value judgements, it's not right or wrong when a star goes supernova, it's not right or wrong when water evaporates, it simply is. It's not objectively wrong to murder people, but every rational person holds the strong subjective belief that it's wrong so it's safe to say "murder is wrong". Maybe he was just arguing semantics, as he acknowledged, but saying something is "objectively wrong" doesn't actually make sense at all. 1+1=7 is not objectively wrong? It's obvious from the context of my post and the thread in general that I'm talking about right/wrong in a moral sense, not mathematically correct or incorrect. For whatever reason, you felt the need to take that single line out of context while ignoring the message of my post. Crushinator posted 2 minutes later On July 28 2013 07:05 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 07:03 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:02 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 06:57 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:49 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 06:41 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:39 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 06:34 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:27 ZenithM wrote:You misunderstood my post. My question was "what can WE do?, rather than "WHAT can we do?". It's not our country, we don't have any control on legislation and education. So it is actually harder to grasp than you seem to think. In fact, I'll quote Mothra's informative link: There is nothing more difficult than persuading people to give up long-held cultural practices, especially those bound up in taboo subjects like sex. Fine, let me rephrase. Put external pressure on said government to provide legislation and education on the subject. Though, I don't really get your point, as you're constantly trying to say we should do nothing, simply because it's so damn hard to do anything. Guess we shouldn't have gone to the moon then... Lol, I never said that actually, re-read my posts if you want. My point is basically this one: On July 28 2013 02:42 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 02:42 docvoc wrote:On July 28 2013 02:23 ZenithM wrote:
[quote]
Assuming that every human being can use "Rational judgement" to come up with the same conclusion is flawed anyway. In those countries, they're not using the same premises as you so they won't get to the same conclusion (that "FGM is bad").
For example, over there religious dogma is much more powerful than in western countries and can be the basis for a "reasoned" argument ("God wants A, hence B" is perfectly fine), which is kind of inconceivable for you.
So I agree with xMZ that in the end it comes down to a power struggle between cultures. If you want your "right thing" to prevail, fight and impose it on others.
And btw, there isn't really anything to discuss or debate in this thread, I'm sure nobody here actually support the practice :D. Good OP nonetheless, informative at least. The fact here is that there is no real "actual right." This is all based on perception. Zenith, you are very right to point out cultural differences, I wasn't going to comment in this thread, but I have to quote your comment because of how on point it is. The U.N. exists in a Western way, whereas these countries don't. The differences because of this make us think the action is barbaric, which isn't the case for a lot of the people taking part in it. The process is slowly dying, for various reasons, and while I don't agree with it, we as westerners have no place telling other people that what they are doing is "objectively bad" even if we find the process detestable. True. And yet it must not prevent us from intervening if we think it's not right. It just won't be for the sake of doing the "objective right thing", that would be naive to think that way :D So, then you're a proponent of cultural imperialism? Instead of believing in moral realism? Either way, you're saying you think it should not hold us back to intervene. What then is your suggestion WE should do to intervene? Well, I don't know, haha (remember, "what now?" :D) but at least I'm aware of it. I just think that a lot of posters here don't know either. I posted here because I just didn't like when someone talked about science, reason and objectivity when this issue is really about culture, morality and ethics. Maybe I'm just arguing semantics here but I don't even think the sentence "This is objectively right/wrong" makes sense. That was me, among others maybe. This issue is about anything but culture. Culture has no say in matters when innocent lifes are being squashed. Science however shows that FGM is useless, and has harrowing effects on the women involved. That makes it objectively wrong. It makes it subjectively wrong from any rational perspective, but nothing is objectively wrong. Right and wrong are subjective value judgements, it's not right or wrong when a star goes supernova, it's not right or wrong when water evaporates, it simply is. It's not objectively wrong to murder people, but every rational person holds the strong subjective belief that it's wrong so it's safe to say "murder is wrong". Maybe he was just arguing semantics, as he acknowledged, but saying something is "objectively wrong" doesn't actually make sense at all. 1+1=7 is not objectively wrong? Mixing up your wrongs is wrong. It was evident to him the mistake you had made, but I ninja'd him with a post of my own also at 7:05. On July 28 2013 07:05 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 07:03 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:02 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 06:57 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:49 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 06:41 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:39 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 06:34 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:27 ZenithM wrote:You misunderstood my post. My question was "what can WE do?, rather than "WHAT can we do?". It's not our country, we don't have any control on legislation and education. So it is actually harder to grasp than you seem to think. In fact, I'll quote Mothra's informative link: There is nothing more difficult than persuading people to give up long-held cultural practices, especially those bound up in taboo subjects like sex. Fine, let me rephrase. Put external pressure on said government to provide legislation and education on the subject. Though, I don't really get your point, as you're constantly trying to say we should do nothing, simply because it's so damn hard to do anything. Guess we shouldn't have gone to the moon then... Lol, I never said that actually, re-read my posts if you want. My point is basically this one: On July 28 2013 02:42 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 02:42 docvoc wrote:On July 28 2013 02:23 ZenithM wrote:
[quote]
Assuming that every human being can use "Rational judgement" to come up with the same conclusion is flawed anyway. In those countries, they're not using the same premises as you so they won't get to the same conclusion (that "FGM is bad").
For example, over there religious dogma is much more powerful than in western countries and can be the basis for a "reasoned" argument ("God wants A, hence B" is perfectly fine), which is kind of inconceivable for you.
So I agree with xMZ that in the end it comes down to a power struggle between cultures. If you want your "right thing" to prevail, fight and impose it on others.
And btw, there isn't really anything to discuss or debate in this thread, I'm sure nobody here actually support the practice :D. Good OP nonetheless, informative at least. The fact here is that there is no real "actual right." This is all based on perception. Zenith, you are very right to point out cultural differences, I wasn't going to comment in this thread, but I have to quote your comment because of how on point it is. The U.N. exists in a Western way, whereas these countries don't. The differences because of this make us think the action is barbaric, which isn't the case for a lot of the people taking part in it. The process is slowly dying, for various reasons, and while I don't agree with it, we as westerners have no place telling other people that what they are doing is "objectively bad" even if we find the process detestable. True. And yet it must not prevent us from intervening if we think it's not right. It just won't be for the sake of doing the "objective right thing", that would be naive to think that way :D So, then you're a proponent of cultural imperialism? Instead of believing in moral realism? Either way, you're saying you think it should not hold us back to intervene. What then is your suggestion WE should do to intervene? Well, I don't know, haha (remember, "what now?" :D) but at least I'm aware of it. I just think that a lot of posters here don't know either. I posted here because I just didn't like when someone talked about science, reason and objectivity when this issue is really about culture, morality and ethics. Maybe I'm just arguing semantics here but I don't even think the sentence "This is objectively right/wrong" makes sense. That was me, among others maybe. This issue is about anything but culture. Culture has no say in matters when innocent lifes are being squashed. Science however shows that FGM is useless, and has harrowing effects on the women involved. That makes it objectively wrong. It makes it subjectively wrong from any rational perspective, but nothing is objectively wrong. Right and wrong are subjective value judgements, it's not right or wrong when a star goes supernova, it's not right or wrong when water evaporates, it simply is. It's not objectively wrong to murder people, but every rational person holds the strong subjective belief that it's wrong so it's safe to say "murder is wrong". Maybe he was just arguing semantics, as he acknowledged, but saying something is "objectively wrong" doesn't actually make sense at all. 1+1=7 is not objectively wrong? That's not a subjective value judgement, that's a mathematical fallacy. 1+1=7 is objectively wrong, of course. I was referring to "right and wrong" as in "good and evil" not "correct or incorrect". Sorry If I didn't make that clear, I can understand why the statement "nothing is objectively wrong" would be misleading. In this post I explain what I meant to say to you and I'm very polite about doing so, I even apologise and say I can understand why you may have misunderstood what I said. Now here is your reply... On July 28 2013 07:16 Shival wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 07:05 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 07:03 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:02 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 06:57 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:49 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 06:41 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:39 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 06:34 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:27 ZenithM wrote:
You misunderstood my post. My question was "what can WE do?, rather than "WHAT can we do?". It's not our country, we don't have any control on legislation and education. So it is actually harder to grasp than you seem to think. In fact, I'll quote Mothra's informative link: [quote] Fine, let me rephrase. Put external pressure on said government to provide legislation and education on the subject. Though, I don't really get your point, as you're constantly trying to say we should do nothing, simply because it's so damn hard to do anything. Guess we shouldn't have gone to the moon then... Lol, I never said that actually, re-read my posts if you want. My point is basically this one: On July 28 2013 02:42 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 02:42 docvoc wrote:
[quote]
The fact here is that there is no real "actual right." This is all based on perception. Zenith, you are very right to point out cultural differences, I wasn't going to comment in this thread, but I have to quote your comment because of how on point it is. The U.N. exists in a Western way, whereas these countries don't. The differences because of this make us think the action is barbaric, which isn't the case for a lot of the people taking part in it. The process is slowly dying, for various reasons, and while I don't agree with it, we as westerners have no place telling other people that what they are doing is "objectively bad" even if we find the process detestable. True. And yet it must not prevent us from intervening if we think it's not right. It just won't be for the sake of doing the "objective right thing", that would be naive to think that way :D So, then you're a proponent of cultural imperialism? Instead of believing in moral realism? Either way, you're saying you think it should not hold us back to intervene. What then is your suggestion WE should do to intervene? Well, I don't know, haha (remember, "what now?" :D) but at least I'm aware of it. I just think that a lot of posters here don't know either. I posted here because I just didn't like when someone talked about science, reason and objectivity when this issue is really about culture, morality and ethics. Maybe I'm just arguing semantics here but I don't even think the sentence "This is objectively right/wrong" makes sense. That was me, among others maybe. This issue is about anything but culture. Culture has no say in matters when innocent lifes are being squashed. Science however shows that FGM is useless, and has harrowing effects on the women involved. That makes it objectively wrong. It makes it subjectively wrong from any rational perspective, but nothing is objectively wrong. Right and wrong are subjective value judgements, it's not right or wrong when a star goes supernova, it's not right or wrong when water evaporates, it simply is. It's not objectively wrong to murder people, but every rational person holds the strong subjective belief that it's wrong so it's safe to say "murder is wrong". Maybe he was just arguing semantics, as he acknowledged, but saying something is "objectively wrong" doesn't actually make sense at all. 1+1=7 is not objectively wrong? That's not a subjective value judgement, that's a mathematical fallacy. 1+1=7 is objectively wrong, of course. Indeed. Now to make clear that even in life we can objectively say something is wrong: For example a heart surgeon performs a surgery on someone who doesn't have any heart conditions. The surgeon knows this beforehand. Does this make the surgery objectively wrong? Now that we have that cleared up, as signified by your "indeed", you go on to "make it clear" that even in life we can say something is objectively wrong by giving the example of a surgeon who knowingly performs surgery on someone who doesn't require the surgery and ask if this makes the surgery objectively wrong? To which I reply... On July 28 2013 07:23 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 07:16 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:05 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 07:03 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:02 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 06:57 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:49 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 06:41 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:39 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 06:34 Shival wrote:
[quote]
Fine, let me rephrase. Put external pressure on said government to provide legislation and education on the subject.
Though, I don't really get your point, as you're constantly trying to say we should do nothing, simply because it's so damn hard to do anything. Guess we shouldn't have gone to the moon then... Lol, I never said that actually, re-read my posts if you want. My point is basically this one: On July 28 2013 02:42 ZenithM wrote:
[quote]
True. And yet it must not prevent us from intervening if we think it's not right.
It just won't be for the sake of doing the "objective right thing", that would be naive to think that way :D
So, then you're a proponent of cultural imperialism? Instead of believing in moral realism? Either way, you're saying you think it should not hold us back to intervene. What then is your suggestion WE should do to intervene? Well, I don't know, haha (remember, "what now?" :D) but at least I'm aware of it. I just think that a lot of posters here don't know either. I posted here because I just didn't like when someone talked about science, reason and objectivity when this issue is really about culture, morality and ethics. Maybe I'm just arguing semantics here but I don't even think the sentence "This is objectively right/wrong" makes sense. That was me, among others maybe. This issue is about anything but culture. Culture has no say in matters when innocent lifes are being squashed. Science however shows that FGM is useless, and has harrowing effects on the women involved. That makes it objectively wrong. It makes it subjectively wrong from any rational perspective, but nothing is objectively wrong. Right and wrong are subjective value judgements, it's not right or wrong when a star goes supernova, it's not right or wrong when water evaporates, it simply is. It's not objectively wrong to murder people, but every rational person holds the strong subjective belief that it's wrong so it's safe to say "murder is wrong". Maybe he was just arguing semantics, as he acknowledged, but saying something is "objectively wrong" doesn't actually make sense at all. 1+1=7 is not objectively wrong? That's not a subjective value judgement, that's a mathematical fallacy. 1+1=7 is objectively wrong, of course. Indeed. Now to make clear that even in life we can objectively say something is wrong: For example a heart surgeon performs a surgery on someone who doesn't have any heart conditions. The surgeon knows this beforehand. Does this make the surgery objectively wrong? It makes the surgery wrong by any rational subjective standards. Why would you perform surgery for no reason? Objectively speaking, it's not right or wrong. Subjectively all rational people would agree that it's wrong. No action is objectively right or wrong because right and wrong are subjective value judgements. Example: I am having a BBQ on a hot day, and it begins to rain. I am upset, and I declare it a bad thing that it rained. My neighbour is a keen gardener and his plants haven't had water in a long time, finally it rains and he declares it a good thing that it rained. We have both made different subjective judgements about the rain, but objectively speaking the rain is not a good thing or a bad thing, it is simply rain. This is why FGM is not objectively right or wrong. Subjectively we feel it is bad and subjectively they feel it is good. Objectively, it is just FGM. Make no mistake, I'm strongly against FGM and the fact that it's not objectively wrong in no way lessons my distaste for the practice or my feelings that it shouldn't be done, but I don't let my personal feelings cloud my understanding of morality and objectivity vs subjectivity. Here I explain that it's wrong by our subjective rational standards, we think actions should have a purpose etc so yeah of course it's seems stupid to us, but that's merely our perspective as opposed to some objective truth. I then give the example of the BBQ and the gardener when it rains to illustrate that right and wrong, good and bad is simply a matter of perspective when objectively speaking these concepts do need even exist. Rain is not good, rain is not bad, it's simply rain. Here I have not only responded to your example and explained why it doesn't show anything, I've given an example of my own to explain my reasoning a bit better. How do you respond? Let's take a look. On July 28 2013 07:34 Shival wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 07:23 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 07:16 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:05 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 07:03 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:02 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 06:57 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:49 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 06:41 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:39 ZenithM wrote:
[quote]
Lol, I never said that actually, re-read my posts if you want. My point is basically this one:
[quote] So, then you're a proponent of cultural imperialism? Instead of believing in moral realism? Either way, you're saying you think it should not hold us back to intervene. What then is your suggestion WE should do to intervene? Well, I don't know, haha (remember, "what now?" :D) but at least I'm aware of it. I just think that a lot of posters here don't know either. I posted here because I just didn't like when someone talked about science, reason and objectivity when this issue is really about culture, morality and ethics. Maybe I'm just arguing semantics here but I don't even think the sentence "This is objectively right/wrong" makes sense. That was me, among others maybe. This issue is about anything but culture. Culture has no say in matters when innocent lifes are being squashed. Science however shows that FGM is useless, and has harrowing effects on the women involved. That makes it objectively wrong. It makes it subjectively wrong from any rational perspective, but nothing is objectively wrong. Right and wrong are subjective value judgements, it's not right or wrong when a star goes supernova, it's not right or wrong when water evaporates, it simply is. It's not objectively wrong to murder people, but every rational person holds the strong subjective belief that it's wrong so it's safe to say "murder is wrong". Maybe he was just arguing semantics, as he acknowledged, but saying something is "objectively wrong" doesn't actually make sense at all. 1+1=7 is not objectively wrong? That's not a subjective value judgement, that's a mathematical fallacy. 1+1=7 is objectively wrong, of course. Indeed. Now to make clear that even in life we can objectively say something is wrong: For example a heart surgeon performs a surgery on someone who doesn't have any heart conditions. The surgeon knows this beforehand. Does this make the surgery objectively wrong? It makes the surgery wrong by any rational subjective standards. Why would you perform surgery for no reason? Objectively speaking, it's not right or wrong. Subjectively all rational people would agree that it's wrong. No action is objectively right or wrong because right or wrong are subjective value judgements. Example: I am having a BBQ on a hot day, and it begins to rain. I am upset, and I declare it a bad thing that it rained. My neighbour is a keen gardener and his plants haven't had water in a long time, finally it rains and he declares it a good thing that it rained. We have both made different subjective judgements about the rain, but objectively speaking the rain is not a good thing or a bad thing, it is simply rain. This is why FGM is not objectively right or wrong. Subjectively we feel it is bad and subjectively they feel it is good. Objectively, it is just FGM. No, that entirely depends on what arguments you allow before deciding whether its subjectively or objectively wrong. The surgeon performed a needless action, that in itself is objectively wrong (not as in evil/good). You can then decide how badly you think it is wrong (as in evil/good), but it is wrong (not as in evil/good) nonetheless. Thus right and wrong can be objective, the subjective part is in it's gradation. Now, say we take subjective matters into the equation, such as that the person he was operating on was a killer, that may change the gradation, but it does not change the overall right or wrong. I can objectively say that rain is a good thing for plants. Now, I could hate plants, so then I would subjectively say that rain is an evil thing. Still, objectively it remains a good thing. You just repeat the same thing to me in different words, "the surgeon performed a needless action, that in itself is objectively wrong". Why is it objectively wrong? You haven't explained anything. You posed a question to me and I answered it as best as I could. Your response was to say "no, it's objectively wrong", and give no explanation as to why. You then respond to my example "I can objectively say that rain is a good thing for plants. Now, I could hate plants, so then I would subjectively say that rain is an evil thing. Still, objectively it remains a good thing." Yes, for plants. Note that I gave examples where one person subjectively felt the rain was good and the other person subjectively felt the rain was bad, but objectively rain is neither good nor bad. You have completely failed to either understand or address this point here and instead you try to claim that since rain is objectively good for plants when the whole notion of introducting something like "for plants" is precisely what makes such a value judgement "rain is good" completely subjective and not objective. You haven't demonstrated anything here except a lack of understanding of the terminology we're discussing. However, I'm a patient man, so I try to explain all of this to you again in the hope that you will understand .... On July 28 2013 07:38 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 07:34 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:23 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 07:16 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:05 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 07:03 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:02 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 06:57 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:49 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 06:41 Shival wrote:
[quote]
So, then you're a proponent of cultural imperialism? Instead of believing in moral realism?
Either way, you're saying you think it should not hold us back to intervene. What then is your suggestion WE should do to intervene?
Well, I don't know, haha (remember, "what now?" :D) but at least I'm aware of it. I just think that a lot of posters here don't know either. I posted here because I just didn't like when someone talked about science, reason and objectivity when this issue is really about culture, morality and ethics. Maybe I'm just arguing semantics here but I don't even think the sentence "This is objectively right/wrong" makes sense. That was me, among others maybe. This issue is about anything but culture. Culture has no say in matters when innocent lifes are being squashed. Science however shows that FGM is useless, and has harrowing effects on the women involved. That makes it objectively wrong. It makes it subjectively wrong from any rational perspective, but nothing is objectively wrong. Right and wrong are subjective value judgements, it's not right or wrong when a star goes supernova, it's not right or wrong when water evaporates, it simply is. It's not objectively wrong to murder people, but every rational person holds the strong subjective belief that it's wrong so it's safe to say "murder is wrong". Maybe he was just arguing semantics, as he acknowledged, but saying something is "objectively wrong" doesn't actually make sense at all. 1+1=7 is not objectively wrong? That's not a subjective value judgement, that's a mathematical fallacy. 1+1=7 is objectively wrong, of course. Indeed. Now to make clear that even in life we can objectively say something is wrong: For example a heart surgeon performs a surgery on someone who doesn't have any heart conditions. The surgeon knows this beforehand. Does this make the surgery objectively wrong? It makes the surgery wrong by any rational subjective standards. Why would you perform surgery for no reason? Objectively speaking, it's not right or wrong. Subjectively all rational people would agree that it's wrong. No action is objectively right or wrong because right or wrong are subjective value judgements. Example: I am having a BBQ on a hot day, and it begins to rain. I am upset, and I declare it a bad thing that it rained. My neighbour is a keen gardener and his plants haven't had water in a long time, finally it rains and he declares it a good thing that it rained. We have both made different subjective judgements about the rain, but objectively speaking the rain is not a good thing or a bad thing, it is simply rain. This is why FGM is not objectively right or wrong. Subjectively we feel it is bad and subjectively they feel it is good. Objectively, it is just FGM. No, that entirely depends on what arguments you allow before deciding whether its subjectively or objectively wrong. The surgeon performed a needless action, that in itself is objectively wrong (not as in evil/good). You can then decide how badly you think it is wrong (as in evil/good), but it is wrong (not as in evil/good) nonetheless. Thus right and wrong can be objective, the subjective part is in it's gradation. Now, say we take subjective matters into the equation, such as that the person he was operating on was a killer, that may change the gradation, but it does not change the overall right or wrong. I can objectively say that rain is a good thing for plants. The performance of a needless action is neither objectively good nor bad, it's simply your subjective opinion that actions should have a purpose. You don't seem to understand that right/wrong and good/bad are entirely subjective. You can objectively say that rain is a good thing for plants, yes. However you can't objectively say "rain is good". It's not good or bad, it's just rain. It's objectively bad for my BBQ if you have a traditional BBQ in mind and it's objectively good for his plants if he's the kind of gardener who doesn't want his plants to die, but the rain itself is not objectively good or bad. Do you understand? Because rain is objectively bad for a traditional BBQ I will hold the subjective opinion that it was "bad that it rained" Because rain is objectively good for plants if they need water he will hold the subjective opinion that it was "good that it rained" Objectively speaking it was neither a good thing nor a bad thing that it rained. It just rained. How do you respond? On July 28 2013 07:44 Shival wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 07:38 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 07:34 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:23 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 07:16 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:05 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 07:03 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:02 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 06:57 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 06:49 ZenithM wrote:
[quote]
Well, I don't know, haha (remember, "what now?" :D) but at least I'm aware of it. I just think that a lot of posters here don't know either.
I posted here because I just didn't like when someone talked about science, reason and objectivity when this issue is really about culture, morality and ethics. Maybe I'm just arguing semantics here but I don't even think the sentence "This is objectively right/wrong" makes sense. That was me, among others maybe. This issue is about anything but culture. Culture has no say in matters when innocent lifes are being squashed. Science however shows that FGM is useless, and has harrowing effects on the women involved. That makes it objectively wrong. It makes it subjectively wrong from any rational perspective, but nothing is objectively wrong. Right and wrong are subjective value judgements, it's not right or wrong when a star goes supernova, it's not right or wrong when water evaporates, it simply is. It's not objectively wrong to murder people, but every rational person holds the strong subjective belief that it's wrong so it's safe to say "murder is wrong". Maybe he was just arguing semantics, as he acknowledged, but saying something is "objectively wrong" doesn't actually make sense at all. 1+1=7 is not objectively wrong? That's not a subjective value judgement, that's a mathematical fallacy. 1+1=7 is objectively wrong, of course. Indeed. Now to make clear that even in life we can objectively say something is wrong: For example a heart surgeon performs a surgery on someone who doesn't have any heart conditions. The surgeon knows this beforehand. Does this make the surgery objectively wrong? It makes the surgery wrong by any rational subjective standards. Why would you perform surgery for no reason? Objectively speaking, it's not right or wrong. Subjectively all rational people would agree that it's wrong. No action is objectively right or wrong because right or wrong are subjective value judgements. Example: I am having a BBQ on a hot day, and it begins to rain. I am upset, and I declare it a bad thing that it rained. My neighbour is a keen gardener and his plants haven't had water in a long time, finally it rains and he declares it a good thing that it rained. We have both made different subjective judgements about the rain, but objectively speaking the rain is not a good thing or a bad thing, it is simply rain. This is why FGM is not objectively right or wrong. Subjectively we feel it is bad and subjectively they feel it is good. Objectively, it is just FGM. No, that entirely depends on what arguments you allow before deciding whether its subjectively or objectively wrong. The surgeon performed a needless action, that in itself is objectively wrong (not as in evil/good). You can then decide how badly you think it is wrong (as in evil/good), but it is wrong (not as in evil/good) nonetheless. Thus right and wrong can be objective, the subjective part is in it's gradation. Now, say we take subjective matters into the equation, such as that the person he was operating on was a killer, that may change the gradation, but it does not change the overall right or wrong. I can objectively say that rain is a good thing for plants. The performance of a needless action is neither objectively good nor bad, it's simply your subjective opinion that actions must have purpose. You don't seem to understand that right/wrong and good/bad are entirely subjective. You can objectively say that rain is a good thing for plants, yes. However you can't objectively say "rain is good". It's not good or bad, it's just rain. It's objectively bad for my BBQ if you have a traditional BBQ in mind and it's objectively good for his plants if he's the kind of gardener who doesn't want his plants to die, but the rain itself is not objectively good or bad. Do you understand? I have understood your point from the very beginning. You're arguing from the basis that 'nothing' can be right/wrong, good/evil etc. That is only true if you take an object or thought at face value, give it an arguement that is objective it can become objectively right/wrong in that case. Though, I hope you realise we're on opposing fronts of a philosophical debate that has raged for centuries. I don't think we'll get much closer than where we are right now, judging by our predecessors. You claim that you have understood exactly what I said from the beginning even though the posts you have made clearly do not demonstrate this in the slightest. You decide that we're on opposite sides of a philosophical debate that has raged for centuries and there isn't much more we can discuss judging from how this debate has gone in the past. You say "give it an arguement that is objective and it can become objectively right/wrong in that case" which doesn't make sense at all. Giving something an argument is introducing bias which by definition means it's no longer objective. There may be an opposing view to that which I hold, but you certainly haven't expressed it thus far. Either way, you seem to have given up discussing the issue, and I'm fine with that if that's what you really want. Here, look at my response. On July 28 2013 07:51 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 07:44 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:38 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 07:34 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:23 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 07:16 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:05 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 07:03 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:02 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 06:57 Shival wrote:
[quote]
That was me, among others maybe. This issue is about anything but culture. Culture has no say in matters when innocent lifes are being squashed. Science however shows that FGM is useless, and has harrowing effects on the women involved. That makes it objectively wrong. It makes it subjectively wrong from any rational perspective, but nothing is objectively wrong. Right and wrong are subjective value judgements, it's not right or wrong when a star goes supernova, it's not right or wrong when water evaporates, it simply is. It's not objectively wrong to murder people, but every rational person holds the strong subjective belief that it's wrong so it's safe to say "murder is wrong". Maybe he was just arguing semantics, as he acknowledged, but saying something is "objectively wrong" doesn't actually make sense at all. 1+1=7 is not objectively wrong? That's not a subjective value judgement, that's a mathematical fallacy. 1+1=7 is objectively wrong, of course. Indeed. Now to make clear that even in life we can objectively say something is wrong: For example a heart surgeon performs a surgery on someone who doesn't have any heart conditions. The surgeon knows this beforehand. Does this make the surgery objectively wrong? It makes the surgery wrong by any rational subjective standards. Why would you perform surgery for no reason? Objectively speaking, it's not right or wrong. Subjectively all rational people would agree that it's wrong. No action is objectively right or wrong because right or wrong are subjective value judgements. Example: I am having a BBQ on a hot day, and it begins to rain. I am upset, and I declare it a bad thing that it rained. My neighbour is a keen gardener and his plants haven't had water in a long time, finally it rains and he declares it a good thing that it rained. We have both made different subjective judgements about the rain, but objectively speaking the rain is not a good thing or a bad thing, it is simply rain. This is why FGM is not objectively right or wrong. Subjectively we feel it is bad and subjectively they feel it is good. Objectively, it is just FGM. No, that entirely depends on what arguments you allow before deciding whether its subjectively or objectively wrong. The surgeon performed a needless action, that in itself is objectively wrong (not as in evil/good). You can then decide how badly you think it is wrong (as in evil/good), but it is wrong (not as in evil/good) nonetheless. Thus right and wrong can be objective, the subjective part is in it's gradation. Now, say we take subjective matters into the equation, such as that the person he was operating on was a killer, that may change the gradation, but it does not change the overall right or wrong. I can objectively say that rain is a good thing for plants. The performance of a needless action is neither objectively good nor bad, it's simply your subjective opinion that actions must have purpose. You don't seem to understand that right/wrong and good/bad are entirely subjective. You can objectively say that rain is a good thing for plants, yes. However you can't objectively say "rain is good". It's not good or bad, it's just rain. It's objectively bad for my BBQ if you have a traditional BBQ in mind and it's objectively good for his plants if he's the kind of gardener who doesn't want his plants to die, but the rain itself is not objectively good or bad. Do you understand? I have understood your point from the very beginning. You're arguing from the basis that 'nothing' can be right/wrong, good/evil etc. That is only true if you take an object or thought at face value, give it an arguement that is objective it can become objectively right/wrong in that case. Though, I hope you realise we're on opposing fronts of a philosophical debate that has raged for centuries. I don't think we'll get much closer than where we are right now, judging by our predecessors. If you want to believe morality is objective that's your own business but I haven't seen you give one example to support such a belief. I've given numerous examples demonstrating why right/wrong and good/bad are entirely subjective and you have either chosen not to debunk them or you are incapable of doing so. I challenge you to give me an example demonstrating that morality is objective that I won't be able to tear apart instantly. If you really believe morality is objective you should be able to conjure up a whole load of examples with ease, just as I have done. Alternatively, you could attempt to explain why my examples are flawed but so far you've done neither so until you actually communicate and explain your beliefs with greater clarity or refute mine in an equally rigorous fashion there is nothing further to discuss. Here I acknowledge your right to your belief, "if you want to believe morality is objective that's your own business" but at the same time I feel it important to mention that you haven't really explained exactly how or why you believe this whilst I had given numerous examples explaining why I believe morality is subjective. Not only that, you didn't really address anything I said in conjuction with not explaining your own beliefs, which I said was either because you were unwilling or unable to do so, which seems a fair conclusion to draw given our conversation at this stage. In an effort to continue the discussion or motivate you to explain your position better I gave you a challenge: since you weren't capable of refuting my examples, create one of your own that would demonstrate your own position and I could try to refute it, essentially I try to reverse our roles here to keep the discussion going and make things a bit more interesting. I also say that alternatively you could just refute my examples if you can't/don't want to create any of your own and then sum up to say that either way so far you've done nothing and until you do you're correct about one thing, we won't get much further (this was a reference to your post when you said according to the past we won't get far in this discussion) How do you respond? On July 28 2013 07:59 Shival wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 07:51 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 07:44 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:38 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 07:34 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:23 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 07:16 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:05 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 07:03 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:02 Reason wrote:
[quote]
It makes it subjectively wrong from any rational perspective, but nothing is objectively wrong. Right and wrong are subjective value judgements, it's not right or wrong when a star goes supernova, it's not right or wrong when water evaporates, it simply is. It's not objectively wrong to murder people, but every rational person holds the strong subjective belief that it's wrong so it's safe to say "murder is wrong". Maybe he was just arguing semantics, as he acknowledged, but saying something is "objectively wrong" doesn't actually make sense at all. 1+1=7 is not objectively wrong? That's not a subjective value judgement, that's a mathematical fallacy. 1+1=7 is objectively wrong, of course. Indeed. Now to make clear that even in life we can objectively say something is wrong: For example a heart surgeon performs a surgery on someone who doesn't have any heart conditions. The surgeon knows this beforehand. Does this make the surgery objectively wrong? It makes the surgery wrong by any rational subjective standards. Why would you perform surgery for no reason? Objectively speaking, it's not right or wrong. Subjectively all rational people would agree that it's wrong. No action is objectively right or wrong because right or wrong are subjective value judgements. Example: I am having a BBQ on a hot day, and it begins to rain. I am upset, and I declare it a bad thing that it rained. My neighbour is a keen gardener and his plants haven't had water in a long time, finally it rains and he declares it a good thing that it rained. We have both made different subjective judgements about the rain, but objectively speaking the rain is not a good thing or a bad thing, it is simply rain. This is why FGM is not objectively right or wrong. Subjectively we feel it is bad and subjectively they feel it is good. Objectively, it is just FGM. No, that entirely depends on what arguments you allow before deciding whether its subjectively or objectively wrong. The surgeon performed a needless action, that in itself is objectively wrong (not as in evil/good). You can then decide how badly you think it is wrong (as in evil/good), but it is wrong (not as in evil/good) nonetheless. Thus right and wrong can be objective, the subjective part is in it's gradation. Now, say we take subjective matters into the equation, such as that the person he was operating on was a killer, that may change the gradation, but it does not change the overall right or wrong. I can objectively say that rain is a good thing for plants. The performance of a needless action is neither objectively good nor bad, it's simply your subjective opinion that actions must have purpose. You don't seem to understand that right/wrong and good/bad are entirely subjective. You can objectively say that rain is a good thing for plants, yes. However you can't objectively say "rain is good". It's not good or bad, it's just rain. It's objectively bad for my BBQ if you have a traditional BBQ in mind and it's objectively good for his plants if he's the kind of gardener who doesn't want his plants to die, but the rain itself is not objectively good or bad. Do you understand? I have understood your point from the very beginning. You're arguing from the basis that 'nothing' can be right/wrong, good/evil etc. That is only true if you take an object or thought at face value, give it an arguement that is objective it can become objectively right/wrong in that case. Though, I hope you realise we're on opposing fronts of a philosophical debate that has raged for centuries. I don't think we'll get much closer than where we are right now, judging by our predecessors. If you want to believe morality is objective that's your own business but I haven't seen you give one example to support such a belief. I've given numerous examples demonstrating why right/wrong and good/bad are entirely subjective and you have either chosen not to debunk them or you are incapable of doing so. I challenge you to give me an example demonstrating that morality is objective that I won't be able to tear apart instantly. If you really believe morality is objective you should be able to conjure up a whole load of examples with ease, just as I have done. Alternatively, you could attempt to explain why my examples are flawed but so far you've done neither so until you actually communicate and explain your beliefs with greater clarity or refute mine in an equally rigorous fashion there is nothing further to discuss. Ridiculous response, I could say the same. Anyway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realismKnock yourself out. I suppose you could read some of those references to find examples. Not going to give examples anymore if you merely take away the arguement added onto an object, so we're left only with the object to then say the object is neither wrong nor right. Even a child could do so. Nor do I like the tone you used, which generally does not give you positive results on what you're asking of me. Though I suppose those authors can explain better than I can, I just hope you're not so rigidly set in your tendency to reduce something to its basic. You say my response is ridiculous when I've just demonstrated it's completely justified. You "could say the same?" You mean you could claim that I haven't explained my position properly and that you've given numerous examples explaining your position that I wasn't able to refute when in fact the absolute opposite is true? If we were arguing about music and I said to you "that's just your own personal musical taste, my favourite band are actually really good" then yes you could say that's ridiculous and that you could say the same. That, however, is absolutely nothing like the situation we have here. I've explained my position, given examples, you've done practically nothing and essentially declared the discussion over. You then liken my beliefs to that of a child and say you don't like the tone I've used when I've been more than patient with you in trying to explain what I think???? You are acting in a manner worthy of ridicule, not I. Here's my response... On July 28 2013 08:10 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 07:59 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:51 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 07:44 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:38 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 07:34 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:23 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 07:16 Shival wrote:On July 28 2013 07:05 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 07:03 Shival wrote:
[quote]
1+1=7 is not objectively wrong? That's not a subjective value judgement, that's a mathematical fallacy. 1+1=7 is objectively wrong, of course. Indeed. Now to make clear that even in life we can objectively say something is wrong: For example a heart surgeon performs a surgery on someone who doesn't have any heart conditions. The surgeon knows this beforehand. Does this make the surgery objectively wrong? It makes the surgery wrong by any rational subjective standards. Why would you perform surgery for no reason? Objectively speaking, it's not right or wrong. Subjectively all rational people would agree that it's wrong. No action is objectively right or wrong because right or wrong are subjective value judgements. Example: I am having a BBQ on a hot day, and it begins to rain. I am upset, and I declare it a bad thing that it rained. My neighbour is a keen gardener and his plants haven't had water in a long time, finally it rains and he declares it a good thing that it rained. We have both made different subjective judgements about the rain, but objectively speaking the rain is not a good thing or a bad thing, it is simply rain. This is why FGM is not objectively right or wrong. Subjectively we feel it is bad and subjectively they feel it is good. Objectively, it is just FGM. No, that entirely depends on what arguments you allow before deciding whether its subjectively or objectively wrong. The surgeon performed a needless action, that in itself is objectively wrong (not as in evil/good). You can then decide how badly you think it is wrong (as in evil/good), but it is wrong (not as in evil/good) nonetheless. Thus right and wrong can be objective, the subjective part is in it's gradation. Now, say we take subjective matters into the equation, such as that the person he was operating on was a killer, that may change the gradation, but it does not change the overall right or wrong. I can objectively say that rain is a good thing for plants. The performance of a needless action is neither objectively good nor bad, it's simply your subjective opinion that actions must have purpose. You don't seem to understand that right/wrong and good/bad are entirely subjective. You can objectively say that rain is a good thing for plants, yes. However you can't objectively say "rain is good". It's not good or bad, it's just rain. It's objectively bad for my BBQ if you have a traditional BBQ in mind and it's objectively good for his plants if he's the kind of gardener who doesn't want his plants to die, but the rain itself is not objectively good or bad. Do you understand? I have understood your point from the very beginning. You're arguing from the basis that 'nothing' can be right/wrong, good/evil etc. That is only true if you take an object or thought at face value, give it an arguement that is objective it can become objectively right/wrong in that case. Though, I hope you realise we're on opposing fronts of a philosophical debate that has raged for centuries. I don't think we'll get much closer than where we are right now, judging by our predecessors. If you want to believe morality is objective that's your own business but I haven't seen you give one example to support such a belief. I've given numerous examples demonstrating why right/wrong and good/bad are entirely subjective and you have either chosen not to debunk them or you are incapable of doing so. I challenge you to give me an example demonstrating that morality is objective that I won't be able to tear apart instantly. If you really believe morality is objective you should be able to conjure up a whole load of examples with ease, just as I have done. Alternatively, you could attempt to explain why my examples are flawed but so far you've done neither so until you actually communicate and explain your beliefs with greater clarity or refute mine in an equally rigorous fashion there is nothing further to discuss. Ridiculous response, I could say the same. Anyway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realismKnock yourself out. I suppose you could read some of those references to find examples. Not going to give examples anymore if you merely take away the arguement added onto an object, so we're left only with the object to then say the object is neither wrong nor right. Even a child could do so. Nor do I like the tone you used, which generally does not give you positive results on what you're asking of me. Though I suppose those authors can explain better than I can, I just hope you're not so rigidly set in your tendency to reduce something to its basic. If you're not comfortable explaining and defending your beliefs then you shouldn't be having this discussion. I'm sorry if English isn't your first language but if you think you "could say the same" then you really don't understand a word of what I've written. I certainly didn't understand what you said here, perhaps you could explain it better? No, that entirely depends on what arguments you allow before deciding whether its subjectively or objectively wrong. The surgeon performed a needless action, that in itself is objectively wrong (not as in evil/good). You can then decide how badly you think it is wrong (as in evil/good), but it is wrong (not as in evil/good) nonetheless. Thus right and wrong can be objective, the subjective part is in it's gradation. Now, say we take subjective matters into the equation, such as that the person he was operating on was a killer, that may change the gradation, but it does not change the overall right or wrong.I really just don't understand what you're saying there so it's difficult to respond to you on this .... The surgeon performed a needless action, that in itself is objectively wrong??? Says who? Give me an example! (not as in evil/good)??? Then what the hell are we talking about? I just don't understand what you're saying tbh... I brush off what you've said and try to get back on track, quoting your first response to me about the surgeon and the needless action, again trying to prompt some kind of coherent, persuasive response from you that I can actually work with because at this stage I really don't understand what your position is or why you disagree with mine because you haven't communicated either effectively. How do you reply to my continued efforts at some kind of a proper discussion? 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. Oh that's right, you get ridiculously offended for no reason and complain that I'm too blunt? If I sound blunt it's because I'm trying my absolute best to communicate to you clearly what I'm saying given that so far you seem not to have understood do you really think adding in linguistic flourish and embellishments is a good idea at this stage? You then tell me I need to learn some manners when the only person who has been acting out is yourself. Finally, you state that's the end of our discussion and I should just go read about what you've said somewhere else. You know what I think to myself? Maybe he's right, this conversation is going nowhere, I'll just leave him alone if that's what he really wants. But do you just leave it there? Oh no... no chance. On July 28 2013 08:35 Shival wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 08:26 ZenithM wrote: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:
[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. 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: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. 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. Show nested quote +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. You claim to have offered me an olive branch and that I rubbed it into your face with my almighty righteousness? That's a fucking absurd comment that is completely unwarranted. Our entire conversation has been quoted and analysed in this post and so far you're just steadily getting more and more out of control in your responses whilst I have retained my dignity and said nothing out of turn to you. Diplomatically I choose to ignore this incendiary post too. You then continue a seperate discussion with someone else and I begin discussing objective/subjective morality with DoubleReed and Crushinator who evidently are capable and willing to have a civilized discussion even when they don't seem to agree with me. Apparently that's not acceptable to you and after a little while... On July 28 2013 22:08 Shival 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. 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. I suggest you stop being a know-it-all who's solely speaking the truth, for all of the theories are still up for debate. I might also add for context that most philosophers hold moral realism as the defining theory. Also, here's a quote of the same wikipedia page for you: - In its descriptive sense, "morality" refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores. It does not connote objective claims of right or wrong, but only refers to that which is considered right or wrong. Descriptive ethics is the branch of philosophy which studies morality in this sense. - In its normative sense, "morality" refers to whatever (if anything) is actually right or wrong, which may be independent of the values or mores held by any particular peoples or cultures. Normative ethics is the branch of philosophy which studies morality in this sense. Oh look, morality indeed does have different descriptions. From a normative standpoint DoubleReed may very well use his description of morality, albeit a bit limiting on the whole, it may work on various cases. You ask us to stop our discussion because apparently you don't feel it's up for debate and then call me a know-it-all because I'm it's still up for debate. Do you not see the contradiction in your post? Absolutely ridiculous. If it's still up for debate then you should allow us to continue to do so without complaining and insulting me, nobody is forcing you to contribute or read to the discussion yet you involve yourself yet again in a negative fashion. At this stage I am done with politeness and patience so once me and DoubleReed conclude our discussion at it's natural end I comment on how much of a crybaby you're being. On July 29 2013 00:05 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 23:56 DoubleReed wrote:On July 28 2013 23:54 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 23:53 DoubleReed wrote: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. Ah. But my point of view is more optimistic of humanity. The reason that they perform FGM is not because they're a bunch of sick barbarians, but because they have incomplete, incorrect information and are subject to their own biases and logical fallacies. Like 99% of humanity, they're doing the best they can, and it just happens that the "best they can" is being a bunch of sick barbarians. I share this view and haven't stated anything to the contrary. Well fine then! Why don't we just AGREE and be really boring!? Meanie. Well I could just disagree with you for the sake of it but I almost never play devil's advocate especially when I agree with someone, besides Shival has called an end for this discussion and apparently I'm a blunt know-it-all with no manners so let's placate this crybaby who can't accept not everyone believes what he does without resorting to insults with our respective silences. So, this leads us to the present moment, where you portray yourself as an innocent victim of my endless yet in reality non-existent ad hominem attacks when you are guilty of the very crime you charge me with. You claim I'm incapable of accepting people don't agree with me when I was perfectly happy to have a discussion with you on those terms. You are the one who decided we weren't going to get anywhere. You are the one who decided to resort to ad hominem attacks. You are the one who got involved in a discussion that you were no longer part of merely to insult me and try to end the discussion because for whatever reason you felt it wasn't appropriate, even though you admitted in the same post that it's still debatable in which case yet again you're not making any sense whatsoever.
I'm glad that you won't be posting on this matter again because frankly I've found the entire interaction rather tiresome and unfruitful.
On July 29 2013 02:29 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2013 00:29 Reason wrote:On July 29 2013 00:21 Shiori wrote: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. I think 1+1=2 is objective, but your reasons for considering morality to be fundamentally opinion-based apply equally to 1+1=2, or any other beliefs. How so? There are many different answers to questions surrounding ethics and morality and inevitably the answer depends upon your subjective moral framework. Mathematics is not like this. Mathematics absolutely depends on your framework. For example, over the field with two elements, 1+1 is actually equal to 0. If you reject the concreteness of moral reasoning on the grounds that it is somehow tied to belief, then you must acknowledge that every single enterprise under human reason operates under an axiomatic belief in logic, at the very least, along with a multitude of other (essentially unproven/impossible to ever prove) postulates (like that causality exists). Show nested quote +That's not true at all. All you need to be a moral agent is evolved empathy. Most mammals on earth are moral agents. False. Empathy without meta-reflection and abstract thought is useless because it's an irrational feeling that can no more tell you to do something right/wrong than deciding whether to eat McDonald's 5x a week versus a nutritious diet can be inferred from how hungry you are. The only way empathy could lead to moral behaviour is if everyone's empathy is the same, if everyone's empathy is perceived in the same way, and if everyone fully understands what empathy actually is (since it can often be misplaced/prone to deceit). Animals can't really do any of these things, relative to humans (or even other animals).
I don't know enough about maths to comment on this. What I'm saying is that I believed 1+1 = 2 was an objective truth whereas saying Queens of the Stoneage are the best band ever is a completely subjective value statement with no objective basis. If I'm wrong about mathematics then ignore what I said and replace it with whatever extremely simple example is required to communicate what it is that I'm trying to say.
If you're saying that objective truths and subjective opinions are identical then I disagree, whatever it is that you're saying you're going to need to explain to it to me in laymans terms because I'm not an academic.
|
EPT
