Empathy?
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-05-2014, 10:36 AM
RE: Empathy?
(08-05-2014 09:16 AM)Timber1025 Wrote:  
(08-05-2014 08:28 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  That is indeed what many think they are doing, i.e. creating moral standards.

But as long as you think that individuals "create" these standards, you are still thinking as a relativist.

Moral realists believe that humans do not create moral standards at all, but rather, "recognize" that they exist.

You see moral values as something that exists because people invent them or conjure them up in their mind and that their referrent is their own thoughts from which said thoughts originate. But if this is indeed the case, then the thoughts of the individual IS the only standard that exists. There is no Standard (capitalized) above two contradictory standards (lower cased) that one can point to and say look here! My standard conforms to The Standard more than your standard does.

Even if more people agree with standard (x) than those that do with (y), which is what you allude to with the whole majority agrees argument, all this means is that more people agree with (x) than (y). If you say that that means x is to be preferred over y then what you are really arguing for is the objectivity of x. I.e. that people "should" hold (x). But in so doing you are arguing "for" the very thing you set out to argue "against" i.e. the existence of objective moral values.

Life is full of standards. Life would be unlivable without them. Morality is one of the most significant aspects of life and yet people want to deny moral standards!!!!!

Deny them on forums and in philosophical papers that is.

No one LIVES as if morality is relative and that there is no such thing as evil. Those that do and act on these views arw deemed sick.

I do not think you really understand what "objectivity" really means. Please look it up as I am not doing your simple homework for you. You also seem to hold to such a simplistic view of morals as being based on the individual. It is collective and subjective, not objective and individual. Somebody in a less developed country may think mutilation is an acceptable punishment for certain acts or religious mandates, but here in the west they would be deemed immoral, criminal and just wrong.

So why do you keep going in cricles with your statements? What is it that you do not accept with societies and cultures defining moral behaviors?

You do not get it still. If what is moral is determined by a society then why did the allied forces invade Nazi Germany?

Those fighting against the Nazis did so for a reason. The reason was simple. They thought genocide was wrong.

But if moral relstivism is true, there is nothing wrong with genocide.
Find all posts by this user
08-05-2014, 10:38 AM
RE: Empathy?
Walker are you high?
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Leo's post
08-05-2014, 10:41 AM
RE: Empathy?
(08-05-2014 10:36 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(08-05-2014 09:16 AM)Timber1025 Wrote:  I do not think you really understand what "objectivity" really means. Please look it up as I am not doing your simple homework for you. You also seem to hold to such a simplistic view of morals as being based on the individual. It is collective and subjective, not objective and individual. Somebody in a less developed country may think mutilation is an acceptable punishment for certain acts or religious mandates, but here in the west they would be deemed immoral, criminal and just wrong.

So why do you keep going in cricles with your statements? What is it that you do not accept with societies and cultures defining moral behaviors?

You do not get it still. If what is moral is determined by a society then why did the allied forces invade Nazi Germany?

Hahahaha lol godwin.

Wait.

You're serious?

The Allied nations acted by the standards of the Allied nations. If it were not already abundantly clear, this should make it plain to anyone who has ever attempted to converse with you that you are, beyond any doubt, so full of shit you sneeze it out.

But also, seriously, write your post then submit it:
(08-05-2014 10:36 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Those fighting against the Nazis did so for a reason. The reason was simple. They thought genocide was wrong.

I hope you take a few minutes break after that stunning display of logic, mate. I wouldn't want to overtax your delicate flower of an intellect. That must have been some seriously wracking mental arithmetic, to lead to that profound conclusion.

(08-05-2014 10:36 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  But if moral relstivism is true, there is nothing wrong with genocide.

Nothing objectively wrong.

Because there are no objective moral standards.

Which does not preclude subjectivity.

Were you born that disingenuously ignorant, or do you have to work at it?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
08-05-2014, 10:51 AM
RE: Empathy?
(08-05-2014 10:04 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  
(08-05-2014 08:28 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  That is indeed what many think they are doing, i.e. creating moral standards.

But as long as you think that individuals "create" these standards, you are still thinking as a relativist.

Moral realists believe that humans do not create moral standards at all, but rather, "recognize" that they exist.

I am not sure that makes sense. If human beings didn't create moral standards, the implication would be that they previously existed or came into existence of their own volition. If what you mean is that a moral relativist does not try to evaluate moral standards, such as ranking or giving preferential consideration to one or another, then from an academic point of view you are correct. However, all moral relativist drive their cars on the right side of the highway, say good day and good evening as they great people, and abstain from violent acts almost uniformly. Nobody operates as if moral standard do not exist. All people give special consideration to one particular moral standard over others.

Quote:
You see moral values as something that exists because people invent them or conjure them up in their mind and that their referrent is their own thoughts from which said thoughts originate. But if this is indeed the case, then the thoughts of the individual IS the only standard that exists. There is no Standard (capitalized) above two contradictory standards (lower cased) that one can point to and say look here! My standard conforms to The Standard more than your standard does.

If that were true accurate communication about abstract ideas would be impossible, not just about morality, but about any concept. It is true, none of us think the exact same thoughts, it is not true that we don't get close enough to come to some kind of agreement as to what we are all talking about. As evidence here in this post right now, you are probably accurately interpreting what I think from the words I have typed on your screen, despite the fact that I have used weighty intellectual concepts like morality, conceptual-ism, and abstraction.

If you are implying that there is no clean way to resolve moral disputes, then you are correct. As I stated in a previous post, the best you can do is find what moral principles you do agree on, and use logic to reason from there. If the two in dispute are to far apart philosophically, then a logical conclusion that accommodates both views is not possible. We see exactly this in the real world.

Quote:Even if more people agree with standard (x) than those that do with (y), which is what you allude to with the whole majority agrees argument, all this means is that more people agree with (x) than (y). If you say that that means x is to be preferred over y then what you are really arguing for is the objectivity of x. I.e. that people "should" hold (x). But in so doing you are arguing "for" the very thing you set out to argue "against" i.e. the existence of objective moral values.

By using the "should" clause it is no longer objective, if it were objective I would say "must", and be implying that they couldn't behave any other way even if they tried to. Precisely because people are capable of behaving in ways that are morally deviant from my own definition of morality proves that morality is subjective.

Quote:Life is full of standards. Life would be unlivable without them. Morality is one of the most significant aspects of life and yet people want to deny moral standards!!!!!

Deny them on forums and in philosophical papers that is.

No one LIVES as if morality is relative and that there is no such thing as evil. Those that do and act on these views arw deemed sick.

Actually everyone does live as if morality is subjective. We are debating it right now for instance, I, a subject, and you, another actor. If morality was objective you would have pulled out your moral instrument, done a measurement, and we would have concluded this conversation a long time ago.

This is another example where you get the argument but just don't like the conclusion. Objectively, there are only objects and interactions of those objects ie events, the moment you interpret either of those its no longer objectivity but subject to the interpreter. Its true with morality, its true with art, its true with love or anything else you might like, the best you can do is say "I think..." and then follow that up with something well reasoned and intelligent.

You seem to be in the process of discovering what many atheist come to terms with in the course of losing their faith. Objectively I can't say that actions are wrong, but subjectively I can evaluate it as wrong, and collectively we can exercise our subjective judgement to create and enforce laws and social contracts. You don't like that its true, but never the less it is still true.

I would be willing to entertain your moral theory if you would only present it. If your moral theory is better than mine I will adopt it. Beyond that though, I feel I have made my position abundantly clear.

Raping chiildren is either:

Moral
Immoral
Amoral

Which do you hold it to be?


This will be my argument for moral objectivism.
Find all posts by this user
08-05-2014, 10:53 AM
RE: Empathy?
(08-05-2014 10:51 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(08-05-2014 10:04 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  I am not sure that makes sense. If human beings didn't create moral standards, the implication would be that they previously existed or came into existence of their own volition. If what you mean is that a moral relativist does not try to evaluate moral standards, such as ranking or giving preferential consideration to one or another, then from an academic point of view you are correct. However, all moral relativist drive their cars on the right side of the highway, say good day and good evening as they great people, and abstain from violent acts almost uniformly. Nobody operates as if moral standard do not exist. All people give special consideration to one particular moral standard over others.


If that were true accurate communication about abstract ideas would be impossible, not just about morality, but about any concept. It is true, none of us think the exact same thoughts, it is not true that we don't get close enough to come to some kind of agreement as to what we are all talking about. As evidence here in this post right now, you are probably accurately interpreting what I think from the words I have typed on your screen, despite the fact that I have used weighty intellectual concepts like morality, conceptual-ism, and abstraction.

If you are implying that there is no clean way to resolve moral disputes, then you are correct. As I stated in a previous post, the best you can do is find what moral principles you do agree on, and use logic to reason from there. If the two in dispute are to far apart philosophically, then a logical conclusion that accommodates both views is not possible. We see exactly this in the real world.


By using the "should" clause it is no longer objective, if it were objective I would say "must", and be implying that they couldn't behave any other way even if they tried to. Precisely because people are capable of behaving in ways that are morally deviant from my own definition of morality proves that morality is subjective.


Actually everyone does live as if morality is subjective. We are debating it right now for instance, I, a subject, and you, another actor. If morality was objective you would have pulled out your moral instrument, done a measurement, and we would have concluded this conversation a long time ago.

This is another example where you get the argument but just don't like the conclusion. Objectively, there are only objects and interactions of those objects ie events, the moment you interpret either of those its no longer objectivity but subject to the interpreter. Its true with morality, its true with art, its true with love or anything else you might like, the best you can do is say "I think..." and then follow that up with something well reasoned and intelligent.

You seem to be in the process of discovering what many atheist come to terms with in the course of losing their faith. Objectively I can't say that actions are wrong, but subjectively I can evaluate it as wrong, and collectively we can exercise our subjective judgement to create and enforce laws and social contracts. You don't like that its true, but never the less it is still true.

I would be willing to entertain your moral theory if you would only present it. If your moral theory is better than mine I will adopt it. Beyond that though, I feel I have made my position abundantly clear.

Raping chiildren is either:

Moral
Immoral
Amoral

Which do you hold it to be?


This will be my argument for moral objectivism.

Raping children is prohibited in all societies. It goes against preservation of the species.

The definition of "children" varies from society to society.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
08-05-2014, 10:53 AM
RE: Empathy?
(08-05-2014 10:36 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  ...
They thought genocide was wrong.
...

Sadly... not true.

Anyway, the bible is pro-genocide so it can't be wrong.

Drinking Beverage

Find all posts by this user
08-05-2014, 10:56 AM
RE: Empathy?
(08-05-2014 10:51 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(08-05-2014 10:04 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  I am not sure that makes sense. If human beings didn't create moral standards, the implication would be that they previously existed or came into existence of their own volition. If what you mean is that a moral relativist does not try to evaluate moral standards, such as ranking or giving preferential consideration to one or another, then from an academic point of view you are correct. However, all moral relativist drive their cars on the right side of the highway, say good day and good evening as they great people, and abstain from violent acts almost uniformly. Nobody operates as if moral standard do not exist. All people give special consideration to one particular moral standard over others.


If that were true accurate communication about abstract ideas would be impossible, not just about morality, but about any concept. It is true, none of us think the exact same thoughts, it is not true that we don't get close enough to come to some kind of agreement as to what we are all talking about. As evidence here in this post right now, you are probably accurately interpreting what I think from the words I have typed on your screen, despite the fact that I have used weighty intellectual concepts like morality, conceptual-ism, and abstraction.

If you are implying that there is no clean way to resolve moral disputes, then you are correct. As I stated in a previous post, the best you can do is find what moral principles you do agree on, and use logic to reason from there. If the two in dispute are to far apart philosophically, then a logical conclusion that accommodates both views is not possible. We see exactly this in the real world.


By using the "should" clause it is no longer objective, if it were objective I would say "must", and be implying that they couldn't behave any other way even if they tried to. Precisely because people are capable of behaving in ways that are morally deviant from my own definition of morality proves that morality is subjective.


Actually everyone does live as if morality is subjective. We are debating it right now for instance, I, a subject, and you, another actor. If morality was objective you would have pulled out your moral instrument, done a measurement, and we would have concluded this conversation a long time ago.

This is another example where you get the argument but just don't like the conclusion. Objectively, there are only objects and interactions of those objects ie events, the moment you interpret either of those its no longer objectivity but subject to the interpreter. Its true with morality, its true with art, its true with love or anything else you might like, the best you can do is say "I think..." and then follow that up with something well reasoned and intelligent.

You seem to be in the process of discovering what many atheist come to terms with in the course of losing their faith. Objectively I can't say that actions are wrong, but subjectively I can evaluate it as wrong, and collectively we can exercise our subjective judgement to create and enforce laws and social contracts. You don't like that its true, but never the less it is still true.

I would be willing to entertain your moral theory if you would only present it. If your moral theory is better than mine I will adopt it. Beyond that though, I feel I have made my position abundantly clear.

Raping chiildren is either:

Moral
Immoral
Amoral

Which do you hold it to be?


This will be my argument for moral objectivism.

C'mon, you are a trainwreck sock puppet, aren't you. You can tell me, it will be our little secret.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Anjele's post
08-05-2014, 10:56 AM
RE: Empathy?
(08-05-2014 10:51 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(08-05-2014 10:04 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  I am not sure that makes sense. If human beings didn't create moral standards, the implication would be that they previously existed or came into existence of their own volition. If what you mean is that a moral relativist does not try to evaluate moral standards, such as ranking or giving preferential consideration to one or another, then from an academic point of view you are correct. However, all moral relativist drive their cars on the right side of the highway, say good day and good evening as they great people, and abstain from violent acts almost uniformly. Nobody operates as if moral standard do not exist. All people give special consideration to one particular moral standard over others.


If that were true accurate communication about abstract ideas would be impossible, not just about morality, but about any concept. It is true, none of us think the exact same thoughts, it is not true that we don't get close enough to come to some kind of agreement as to what we are all talking about. As evidence here in this post right now, you are probably accurately interpreting what I think from the words I have typed on your screen, despite the fact that I have used weighty intellectual concepts like morality, conceptual-ism, and abstraction.

If you are implying that there is no clean way to resolve moral disputes, then you are correct. As I stated in a previous post, the best you can do is find what moral principles you do agree on, and use logic to reason from there. If the two in dispute are to far apart philosophically, then a logical conclusion that accommodates both views is not possible. We see exactly this in the real world.


By using the "should" clause it is no longer objective, if it were objective I would say "must", and be implying that they couldn't behave any other way even if they tried to. Precisely because people are capable of behaving in ways that are morally deviant from my own definition of morality proves that morality is subjective.


Actually everyone does live as if morality is subjective. We are debating it right now for instance, I, a subject, and you, another actor. If morality was objective you would have pulled out your moral instrument, done a measurement, and we would have concluded this conversation a long time ago.

This is another example where you get the argument but just don't like the conclusion. Objectively, there are only objects and interactions of those objects ie events, the moment you interpret either of those its no longer objectivity but subject to the interpreter. Its true with morality, its true with art, its true with love or anything else you might like, the best you can do is say "I think..." and then follow that up with something well reasoned and intelligent.

You seem to be in the process of discovering what many atheist come to terms with in the course of losing their faith. Objectively I can't say that actions are wrong, but subjectively I can evaluate it as wrong, and collectively we can exercise our subjective judgement to create and enforce laws and social contracts. You don't like that its true, but never the less it is still true.

I would be willing to entertain your moral theory if you would only present it. If your moral theory is better than mine I will adopt it. Beyond that though, I feel I have made my position abundantly clear.

Raping chiildren is either:

Moral
Immoral
Amoral

Which do you hold it to be?


This will be my argument for moral objectivism.

I am a moral objectivist. I hold that the objective standard of morality is the life and well-being of human beings. Is this objective in the sense that it exists independent of humans? No. You seem to hold that objective morality means that there must be some force outside of humans that sets the standards. I hold that this is not objective morality, but subjective since morality is determined by arbitration.

By MY standard, raping children is wrong since it is contrary to the objective (to us) value of human life and well-being. By YOUR standard, it depends on whether or not God says it's ok.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes natachan's post
08-05-2014, 10:59 AM
RE: Empathy?
(08-05-2014 10:51 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Raping chiildren is either:

Moral
Immoral
Amoral

Which do you hold it to be?


This will be my argument for moral objectivism.
As soon as you asked about "you", objectivity went out the window...

Aside from that, you need to provide a context for where the definitions of "moral", "immoral", and "amoral" are coming from.

Of course, you will then try to say you don't want a context because this is supposed to be "objective". The problem with that is you are starting with "objective" and then trying to prove morality is "objective" within that framework. That's circular. Another problem is we can't reasonably discuss those three terms without the subjective definitions.

So now what? Drinking Beverage

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Impulse's post
08-05-2014, 11:00 AM (This post was last modified: 08-05-2014 11:08 AM by Revenant77x.)
RE: Empathy?
3) No Porn, Nude Images, or Discussions on the Merits of Paedophilia
Pornographic material of any kind will not be tolerated, including links to pornographic material. We have users from all age groups here, porn and nudity are not appropriate. Discussions on paedophilia are simply too emotive for some people to handle and cause issues on the forum. As such threads that discuss it will not be allowed. Threads that are in condemnation of child molestation are acceptable. Violators will be banned.
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: