Objective Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-04-2014, 09:13 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 08:45 AM)Artie Wrote:  
(05-04-2014 08:31 AM)Baruch Wrote:  Artie - it is not that simple. Tribe 2 might be a primitive backward undeveloped tribe and tribe 1 may end up bringing overall greater benefit to all if they rape & pillage tribe 2, use their women to make more babies who grow up in tribe 2 culture and take the resources from tribe 1 to further develop tribe 2 making it flourish even more into a greater tribe 2 state - even using some tribe 1 slaves.

...and this is not far fetched, its basically what happened when Europe conquered the Aborigines and today Australia is a thriving western democracy not a neolithic hunter gatherer society. In terms of the amount of overall benefit and survival it seems tribe 2 is right to conquer tribe 1 based on the type of utilitarianism your justifying.
Except of course that we don't know how much better the conditions could have been in Australia for everybody including the Aborigines if they hadn't been "conquered" in the first place but treated with dignity and respect. How many problems and criticism hasn't Australia faced because of this? Instead of "conquering" but following evolutionary evolved morals such as the Golden Rule all these problems and criticism could have been avoided.

The Americas is a good example - the Spanish, Portuguese, British and other conquerors virtually eliminated the indigenous American Indians bringing a very different culture. Likewise with the Australia example. Nothing in evolution necessitates each separate groups must cooperate and treat each other with dignity - on the contrary it is competition between groups which has created technology, sophisticated political systems, economic and other forms of social development.
Likewise anthropologically competition between groups such as hunter gatherers and agrarians societies also led to fighting and competition for resources leading to further developments in farming, defense, crop rotation, food storage, more complex political systems and eventually to empire building. Then different Empires fight each other leading to further developments in military technologies, civil engineering projects to consolidate the Empires strength and advanced economic, education & political systems - and even time for philosophizing once the Empire has enough resources & not require people to spend all day hunting and gathering but time to contemplate (eg The Greek empires didnt just pop into existence but went through the above process - some of it savage eg conquest of the Persian Empires to expand Hellenism to the East) .

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Baruch's post
05-04-2014, 09:16 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 09:09 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(05-04-2014 08:57 AM)Artie Wrote:  Depends on the circumstances of course.
The rest of what you said was either deliberate misunderstanding of terms or intellectual dishonesty but this is conceding the point. If an action is only right or wrong under correct circumstances (and those circumstances vary from person to person) that is by definition
NOT OBJECTIVE


Thanks for playing.
LOL I said it varies according to the circumstances not according to the person. Thanks for playing but you should play by the rules and not misrepresent the other.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2014, 09:22 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 09:16 AM)Artie Wrote:  
(05-04-2014 09:09 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  The rest of what you said was either deliberate misunderstanding of terms or intellectual dishonesty but this is conceding the point. If an action is only right or wrong under correct circumstances (and those circumstances vary from person to person) that is by definition
NOT OBJECTIVE


Thanks for playing.
LOL I said it varies according to the circumstances not according to the person. Thanks for playing but you should play by the rules and not misrepresent the other.

Ok then list all the circumstances that ever person in the world would agree that killing another person is not immoral.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
05-04-2014, 09:33 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 09:13 AM)Baruch Wrote:  The Americas is a good example - the Spanish, Portuguese, British and other conquerors virtually eliminated the indigenous American Indians bringing a very different culture. Likewise with the Australia example. Nothing in evolution necessitates each separate groups must cooperate and treat each other with dignity - on the contrary it is competition between groups which has created technology, sophisticated political systems, economic and other forms of social development.
Likewise anthropologically competition between groups such as hunter gatherers and agrarians societies also led to fighting and competition for resources leading to further developments in farming, defense, crop rotation, food storage, more complex political systems and eventually to empire building. Then different Empires fight each other leading to further developments in military technologies, civil engineering projects to consolidate the Empires strength and advanced economic, education & political systems - and even time for philosophizing once the Empire has enough resources & not require people to spend all day hunting and gathering but time to contemplate (eg The Greek empires didnt just pop into existence but went through the above process - some of it savage eg conquest of the Persian Empires to expand Hellenism to the East) .
I'm not quite sure where you are going with this... are you trying to say that living by the Golden Rule and "you shall not murder" actually is detrimental to progress and that instead of helping each other we should be conquering and killing each other because that leads to empire building?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2014, 09:37 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 09:22 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Ok then list all the circumstances that ever person in the world would agree that killing another person is not immoral.
When this another person is threating to kill your child or wife or husband and the only way you have to stop him is kill him.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2014, 09:40 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 09:37 AM)Artie Wrote:  
(05-04-2014 09:22 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Ok then list all the circumstances that ever person in the world would agree that killing another person is not immoral.
When this another person is threating to kill your child or wife or husband and the only way you have to stop him is kill him.

pac·i·fist
ˈpasəˌfist/Submit
noun
plural noun: pacifists
1.
a person who believes that war and violence are unjustifiable.

They would disagree.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2014, 09:54 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 09:40 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(05-04-2014 09:37 AM)Artie Wrote:  When this another person is threating to kill your child or wife or husband and the only way you have to stop him is kill him.

pac·i·fist
ˈpasəˌfist/Submit
noun
plural noun: pacifists
1.
a person who believes that war and violence are unjustifiable.

They would disagree.
Killing is perfectly objectively moral in self defense or in defense of your children or family etc if there was no other option. I would be very interested if you can find some quote from a person disagreeing with that. I would like to see his reasoning.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2014, 09:58 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 09:54 AM)Artie Wrote:  
(05-04-2014 09:40 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  pac·i·fist
ˈpasəˌfist/Submit
noun
plural noun: pacifists
1.
a person who believes that war and violence are unjustifiable.

They would disagree.
Killing is perfectly objectively moral in self defense or in defense of your children or family etc if there was no other option. I would be very interested if you can find some quote from a person disagreeing with that. I would like to see his reasoning.

I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.
Mahatma Gandhi

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/author...HTQd8gL.99

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2014, 10:02 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 09:58 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(05-04-2014 09:54 AM)Artie Wrote:  Killing is perfectly objectively moral in self defense or in defense of your children or family etc if there was no other option. I would be very interested if you can find some quote from a person disagreeing with that. I would like to see his reasoning.
I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.
Mahatma Gandhi
No, we are talking specifically about whether killing in self defense or in defense of your children and family etc is moral or immoral given no other choice. I would appreciate it if you could find somebody who reasons that it would be immoral.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2014, 10:07 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 10:02 AM)Artie Wrote:  
(05-04-2014 09:58 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.
Mahatma Gandhi
No, we are talking specifically about whether killing in self defense or in defense of your children and family etc is moral or immoral given no other choice. I would appreciate it if you could find somebody who reasons that it would be immoral.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/21...lf-Defense

Quote:Self defense only leads to self defense. If I use violence to protect myself, then I permit you to use violence to protect yourself. This is the rationale for "Stand Your Ground," and I find it difficult to listen to people who seek justice for Trayvion while simultaneously defending the black-bandanna crowd when they instigate violence against the state.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: