Objective Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-04-2014, 04:32 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 03:31 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(05-04-2014 06:59 AM)Baruch Wrote:  Not so fast. It is not clear if the moral disagreements are ever in exactly the same circumstances when defining the terms such as murder, killing or taking a life etc (or property is the examples I used.)
Different cultures may define murder differently but the circumstances (historical influences, predispositions, philosophies or whatever are different) eg a christian philosophizing about just war theory, a totalitarian secular dictator, secular humanist, Islamic Jihadist or Jain complaining we are murdering all the animals and advocating pacifism & veganism.

I'm not talking about the *view* of the act, but the act itself. If many people can see or do the SAME ACT, and the SAME ACT, (taking a life) can be viewed in countless ways, and with varying degrees of culpability, (from none, (taking a life in war), to something itself deserving a "death sentence", to claim there is something "objectively" wrong about it, is preposterous.

I disagree - you can have a set of principles and can make objective judgments if those principles apply. Of course there are some epistemological limitations but just because there are limitations doesnt mean there are no distinctions. There is clearly a difference between manslaughter and 1st degree murder and if what your saying is correct then all distinctions blur into one monolithic category "killing" - this is clearly nonsense.
If someone drives drunk and carelessly and kills someone this is different to someone targeting an individual on purpose for a hit and run. It is far fetched to conflate both cases as the same actions "killing" without the distinctions in intentions, planning and circumstance. The drunk may be confused and say they intentionally targeted the individual ? The hit and run may claim confusion and some alcohol to cover up the intention claiming negligence ? These different views don't change the facts of the case. A court may have difficulty distinguishing the cases if some of the facts are unknown - but this is an epistemological barrier and doesn't change the facts.

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
05-04-2014, 04:39 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 04:26 PM)Banjo Wrote:  Short and concise. Hmmmmm.

You're trolling.

Either that or:

a. You are completely ignorant of history.
b. You constantly contradict yourself. Seemingly with the purpose of frustrating others.
c. You do not appear to know where you are even coming from.
d. This entire exercise is a waste of time because of a b and c.

And you're trolling. I don't say that lightly.
So you can't or won't explain in a short and concise manner exactly what is the problem with my understanding of this article and resort to insults. I really expected better from you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2014, 06:35 PM (This post was last modified: 05-04-2014 06:49 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 04:32 PM)Baruch Wrote:  
(05-04-2014 03:31 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I'm not talking about the *view* of the act, but the act itself. If many people can see or do the SAME ACT, and the SAME ACT, (taking a life) can be viewed in countless ways, and with varying degrees of culpability, (from none, (taking a life in war), to something itself deserving a "death sentence", to claim there is something "objectively" wrong about it, is preposterous.

I disagree - you can have a set of principles and can make objective judgments if those principles apply. Of course there are some epistemological limitations but just because there are limitations doesnt mean there are no distinctions. There is clearly a difference between manslaughter and 1st degree murder and if what your saying is correct then all distinctions blur into one monolithic category "killing" - this is clearly nonsense.
If someone drives drunk and carelessly and kills someone this is different to someone targeting an individual on purpose for a hit and run. It is far fetched to conflate both cases as the same actions "killing" without the distinctions in intentions, planning and circumstance. The drunk may be confused and say they intentionally targeted the individual ? The hit and run may claim confusion and some alcohol to cover up the intention claiming negligence ? These different views don't change the facts of the case. A court may have difficulty distinguishing the cases if some of the facts are unknown - but this is an epistemological barrier and doesn't change the facts.

If you have to "make" whatever sort of *judgements*, then it's subjective, NOT "objective", by definition. The FACT is there was a death. The "subjective judgement" was applying standards of guilt to the act of causing the death. You are NOT disagreeing with me. In fact you just made my point for me.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
05-04-2014, 06:47 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 03:39 PM)Baruch Wrote:  Not all moral laws are akin to theocracy except the theocratic ones !
I said nothing to justify any Divine law theory.
There are many moral systems such as Aristotelianism or universal preference theories or others which are quite compatible with a democratic or a rational society.
I'm talking about morals.
Theocratic morals, humanistic morals, Aristotelianism morals, what's the difference?
Why do you feel the need to force someone's morals onto other people?
Why can't you let people live their own lives, make their own choices?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2014, 07:03 PM
RE: Objective Morality
I'd like to let people's morals be their own, until systems like radical religion come into play. They have "morals" that almost by default subjugate certain groups of people against their will. And I'm sorry, but "you have to submit in this manner or face the eternal wrath of God" is not submitting by choice... that's definite duress.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Charis's post
05-04-2014, 08:56 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 06:35 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(05-04-2014 04:32 PM)Baruch Wrote:  I disagree - you can have a set of principles and can make objective judgments if those principles apply. Of course there are some epistemological limitations but just because there are limitations doesnt mean there are no distinctions. There is clearly a difference between manslaughter and 1st degree murder and if what your saying is correct then all distinctions blur into one monolithic category "killing" - this is clearly nonsense.
If someone drives drunk and carelessly and kills someone this is different to someone targeting an individual on purpose for a hit and run. It is far fetched to conflate both cases as the same actions "killing" without the distinctions in intentions, planning and circumstance. The drunk may be confused and say they intentionally targeted the individual ? The hit and run may claim confusion and some alcohol to cover up the intention claiming negligence ? These different views don't change the facts of the case. A court may have difficulty distinguishing the cases if some of the facts are unknown - but this is an epistemological barrier and doesn't change the facts.

If you have to "make" whatever sort of *judgements*, then it's subjective, NOT "objective", by definition. The FACT is there was a death. The "subjective judgement" was applying standards of guilt to the act of causing the death. You are NOT disagreeing with me. In fact you just made my point for me.

Of course you can make objective judgments - either there was direct intention to kill or there was not. Intentions exist. Of course the judgments made can be mistaken because there COULD BE some set up (eg in the case I suggested it could be that the 1st degree murder was a set up and the drunk driver was quickly hit on the head and injected with alcohol to make it seem that they were drunk and careless etc)- but the fact there may be some epistemological barriers does not mean it is all subjective. Witnesses CAN be unreliable and I have read Elizabeth Loftus work on failure of witnesses - but just because there can be mistakes, misjudgments or set ups it does not discount the fact that it is possible to discover the objective difference between manslaughter and 1st degree murder (or other cases such as the property theft examples)

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
05-04-2014, 09:05 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 06:47 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(05-04-2014 03:39 PM)Baruch Wrote:  Not all moral laws are akin to theocracy except the theocratic ones !
I said nothing to justify any Divine law theory.
There are many moral systems such as Aristotelianism or universal preference theories or others which are quite compatible with a democratic or a rational society.
I'm talking about morals.
Theocratic morals, humanistic morals, Aristotelianism morals, what's the difference?
Why do you feel the need to force someone's morals onto other people?
Why can't you let people live their own lives, make their own choices?

You cannot lump all the above systems as if they are all the same.
There is a huge difference between pretending there is some mystical supernatural invisible deity dictating books & alleged afterlife and something akin to Aristotelian or UPT which may have a rational and worldly/practical basis for achieving a society which functions better/thrives/achieves excellence/flourishes or other similar goal.
Morality would have similar functions to many other social systems & institutions be it economic, political, medical or technological/civil. (many of these mentioned are intertwined with moral reasoning)

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
05-04-2014, 09:17 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 06:47 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(05-04-2014 03:39 PM)Baruch Wrote:  Not all moral laws are akin to theocracy except the theocratic ones !
I said nothing to justify any Divine law theory.
There are many moral systems such as Aristotelianism or universal preference theories or others which are quite compatible with a democratic or a rational society.
I'm talking about morals.
Theocratic morals, humanistic morals, Aristotelianism morals, what's the difference?
Why do you feel the need to force someone's morals onto other people?
Why can't you let people live their own lives, make their own choices?

We also dont live in isolated bubbles making our own choices etc but we are intertwined within a social framework - but I recall you don't even believe people make their own choices anyway because you don't believe in any freedom of will or autonomous will - so according to you there are no choices - everything is either biological or social compulsion, so whats the complaint ?

If I run a business I want to influence other peoples choices so they come to work on time and are not rude to customers - then I am limiting other peoples choices. If the dont obey I fire them. There is nothing intrinsically wrong about influencing peoples lives & choices. In my case the caveat is it is rationally based criteria and not based on any mystical or supernatural faith - therefore I have no problem with rationally based moral systems - even if they limit peoples choices.

In addition are you saying "I should not let people live their own lives, make their own choices" - sounds like moral preaching !

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
05-04-2014, 09:43 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 02:59 PM)Artie Wrote:  
(05-04-2014 02:22 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(05-04-2014 10:59 AM)Artie Wrote:  And yet again your only contribution are insults.
And yet, you refuse to say anything that warrants otherwise, ya' fucktard. I can't be held accountable for the fact that you lack the basic comprehension to understand what is being presented to you.
And yet again your only contribution are insults.

[Image: keep-calm-and-don-t-feed-the-troll-48.png]

Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
05-04-2014, 09:50 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(05-04-2014 09:05 PM)Baruch Wrote:  You cannot lump all the above systems as if they are all the same.
There is a huge difference between pretending there is some mystical supernatural invisible deity dictating books & alleged afterlife and something akin to Aristotelian or UPT which may have a rational and worldly/practical basis for achieving a society which functions better/thrives/achieves excellence/flourishes or other similar goal.
Morality would have similar functions to many other social systems & institutions be it economic, political, medical or technological/civil. (many of these mentioned are intertwined with moral reasoning)
I'm not talking about belief in dieties. Belief in deities is benign.
I'm talking about belief in morality.
Forces your moral beliefs onto others is aggressive, regardless if you think the source of your morality is a god or yourself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: