Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-07-2015, 10:07 AM
RE: Morality
(28-07-2015 10:05 AM)Hambone Wrote:  Bearded dude, did you have a rebuttal?

Objective morality is an asinine conclusion based on a misunderstanding about how morality exists within cultures and societies.

Morality is observed to not be objective.
1750: Slavery is not immoral in the Colonies
2015: Slavery is most definitely immoral in the U.S.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2015, 10:09 AM
RE: Morality
(28-07-2015 09:54 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(28-07-2015 09:53 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Let's just be clear here, so we avoid talking past each other. Do you disagree with the definition that was presented by me earlier:

Random:
"made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision."

NO I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT DEFINITION BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING ABOUT A PATTERN THAT IS NOT RANDOM THAT REQUIRES METHOD OR CONSCIOUS DECISION EITHER.

A word for things that are not a product of method, or conscious decision is "random".

This doesn't mean your particular definition is wrong, but that there's more than one meaning, more than one way in which the term can be used, just like the word "theory" which takes on different connotations in a scientific sense, as opposed to the colloquial sense.

You're running the risk of equivocation here.

"Equivocation ("to call by the same name") is an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time)."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2015, 10:12 AM
RE: Morality
(28-07-2015 10:09 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(28-07-2015 09:54 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  NO I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT DEFINITION BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING ABOUT A PATTERN THAT IS NOT RANDOM THAT REQUIRES METHOD OR CONSCIOUS DECISION EITHER.

A word for things that are not a product of method, or conscious decision is "random".

This doesn't mean your particular definition is wrong, but that there's more than one meaning, more than one way in which the term can be used, just like the word "theory" which takes on different connotations in a scientific sense, as opposed to the colloquial sense.

When used in a scientific or statistical sense (as it has been in this thread), it has no relevance in the way you want to define it.

As a matter of fact, that definition of "random" is useless outside of the scientific or statistical sense, because it implies a non-random pattern is still random if not the result of "consciousness or method." It is a fucking useless definition.

For instance:
[Image: Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png]

Climates are not random, but based on that definition, they are random.

You not understanding random, is a symptom of your lack of intelligence. Now, fuck off Drinking Beverage

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2015, 10:12 AM
RE: Morality
(28-07-2015 10:07 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(28-07-2015 10:05 AM)Hambone Wrote:  Bearded dude, did you have a rebuttal?

Objective morality is an asinine conclusion based on a misunderstanding about how morality exists within cultures and societies.

Morality is observed to not be objective.
1750: Slavery is not immoral in the Colonies
2015: Slavery is most definitely immoral in the U.S.

So raping and torturing an innocent 6 year old for fun, is NOT factually wrong...its just a matter of opinion that its wrong, which is just as valid as me thinking I am the best looking man that ever existed?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2015, 10:14 AM
RE: Morality
(28-07-2015 10:12 AM)Hambone Wrote:  
(28-07-2015 10:07 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Objective morality is an asinine conclusion based on a misunderstanding about how morality exists within cultures and societies.

Morality is observed to not be objective.
1750: Slavery is not immoral in the Colonies
2015: Slavery is most definitely immoral in the U.S.

So raping and torturing an innocent 6 year old for fun, is NOT factually wrong...its just a matter of opinion that its wrong, which is just as valid as me thinking I am the best looking man that ever existed?

False equivocation.

How a society defines harm and moral or immoral at any given time, will dictate what is or isn't moral or immoral.

Plenty of cultures still allow the removal of the clitoris of young girls and allow the arranged marrying of young girls. In those societies (today and in the past), there was/is nothing deemed immoral about any of that.

Because morality, is not objective.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2015, 10:15 AM
RE: Morality
Saying I am the best looking man that ever existed is just as valid as saying torturing and raping a girl for fun is wrong?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2015, 10:15 AM
RE: Morality
(28-07-2015 10:12 AM)Hambone Wrote:  So raping and torturing an innocent 6 year old for fun, is NOT factually wrong...its just a matter of opinion that its wrong, which is just as valid as me thinking I am the best looking man that ever existed?

I predict you won't get a straight answer on that one, besides from nihilist who would say that it's a matter of opinion. But I'm hoping to be surprised.

The likely response would be something along the lines of it not being factually wrong, nor being a matter of opinion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2015, 10:15 AM
RE: Morality
(28-07-2015 10:15 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(28-07-2015 10:12 AM)Hambone Wrote:  So raping and torturing an innocent 6 year old for fun, is NOT factually wrong...its just a matter of opinion that its wrong, which is just as valid as me thinking I am the best looking man that ever existed?

I predict you won't get a straight answer on that one, besides from nihilist who would say that it's a matter of opinion. But I'm hoping to be surprised.

If morality is truly subjective, then why wouldn't I get a straight answer?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2015, 10:16 AM
RE: Morality
Hell, even the term "beauty" for who is or isn't the most handsome or beautiful person is cultural and non-objective. Different societies and species have different concepts of beauty because it too is completely subjective. But you are treating these subjective terms as objective terms and that is where your error lies.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2015, 10:16 AM
RE: Morality
(28-07-2015 10:15 AM)Hambone Wrote:  
(28-07-2015 10:15 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I predict you won't get a straight answer on that one, besides from nihilist who would say that it's a matter of opinion. But I'm hoping to be surprised.

If morality is truly subjective, then why wouldn't I get a straight answer?

It is wrong in the U.S. today. <-straight answer for one specific context.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: