Objective Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-04-2014, 09:39 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(08-04-2014 01:18 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(07-04-2014 03:17 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Hey Artie

I just wanted to say that I think you are doing a great job of addressing people's comments. Although most people (myself included) disagree with your POV I think it is great to have people expressing different views.

Well done.

Ditto.

These are the conversation that I look forward to.


Got another plane to catch. Back later.

In Which DLC Licks the Asses of Trolls

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2014, 09:41 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(08-04-2014 07:44 AM)living thing Wrote:  Is there any behaviour that can be objectively deemed right or wrong? I don’t know because I cannot consider the universe from every possible angle, but I doubt so. The idea of eating a human child alive, for example, seems awful from my perspective, but I am not so sure it is from the point of view of a hungry crocodile.
It is objectively wrong for a human, objectively right for a crocodile.
Quote:But I may be wrong, I am only describing my own subjective and possibly mistaken view. Please feel free to disagree.

Thanks again for your clarifications and have a great day!
Thank you and thanks for an interesting post. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2014, 09:56 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(08-04-2014 09:41 AM)Artie Wrote:  It is objectively wrong for a human, objectively right for a crocodile.

Which makes it not objectively right at all.
Way to shoot yourself in the face, moron.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2014, 10:03 AM
RE: Objective Morality
Hello Artie, it is a pleasure to exchange views.

(08-04-2014 09:41 AM)Artie Wrote:  It [eating a human child alive] is objectively wrong for a human, objectively right for a crocodile.
If eating a human child is right for a crocodile but wrong for a human being, why do we prevent crocodiles from eating human children? They're not human beings, it is objectively right (according to you) for them to eat human children.

By describing a behaviour as right from one point of view (that of a human being) and wrong from a different point of view (that of a crocodile), you are describing a subjective notion, at least in the sense that I use the word.

But who knows?

EDIT: Sorry Taq, I didn't see your post when I started typing mine. Have fun!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like living thing's post
08-04-2014, 10:07 AM (This post was last modified: 08-04-2014 10:12 AM by Artie.)
RE: Objective Morality
(08-04-2014 09:12 AM)guitar_nut Wrote:  Noted, but full of subjective words like empathy and survival instinct (which causes people to both inflict and prevent pain and act selfishly and selflessly based on their personality, and is therefore not very objective nor consistent).
The survival instinct in itself is objective because the objective evolutionary process put it in via natural selection, I didn't subjectively decide to have one before I was conceived. That different people interpret differently which actions they should base on it is subjective. Some perform wrong actions, some right ones.
Quote:Right off the bat, 'do unto others' is open to subjective interpretation. I might find it humane to euthanize terminally ill patients who are chronically ill, perhaps causing them mental anguish but ending a much more severe physical anguish. I might want that same mercy given to me, therefore fulfilling the mutual clause. I could make a very good moral case for my actions. I could find a group of like-minded individuals who support me. I could genuinely believe I am doing a good thing; I am 'doing to others' as I want to 'receive'. It's all about me, based on my interpretation of what cooperation is. However, I might euthanize an ill patient only to incur violent wrath from the family, as well as anger from the patient who, subjectively, decided that living with pain and illness is better than not living at all.
But of course you would ask the patient and the family first? if you were in their situation you would want that they asked you first before possibly killing you!?

Quote:Additionally, if the golden rule is based on survival, we are not driven as a species by cooperation and friendship. We are driven by needs:
1. The need for resources (food, water) to continue surviving;
Which we need cooperation and "friendship" and a stable society to get.
Quote:2. The need to procreate;
Where we need the cooperation and friendship of our family and friends and a stable society to make sure that our offspring has the best chances of surviving to produce new offspring.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2014, 10:11 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(08-04-2014 10:03 AM)living thing Wrote:  Hello Artie, it is a pleasure to exchange views.

(08-04-2014 09:41 AM)Artie Wrote:  It [eating a human child alive] is objectively wrong for a human, objectively right for a crocodile.
If eating a human child is right for a crocodile but wrong for a human being, why do we prevent crocodiles from eating human children? They're not human beings, it is objectively right (according to you) for them to eat human children.

By describing a behaviour as right from one point of view (that of a human being) and wrong from a different point of view (that of a crocodile), you are describing a subjective notion, at least in the sense that I use the word.

But who knows?

EDIT: Sorry Taq, I didn't see your post when I started typing mine. Have fun!

This is no less than the ninth time he has done this. Either he is retarded and does not understand the english language or he is just a troll. Between this and him not understanding what Binary means I am leaning towards just a troll and have since just stopped feeding him.

(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
08-04-2014, 10:34 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(08-04-2014 10:07 AM)Artie Wrote:  But of course you would ask the patient and the family first? if you were in their situation you would want that they asked you first before possibly killing you!?

Would I? You're projecting your morals on my Dr. Death. You're being subjective, using right and wrong based on your own criteria. Am I really killing someone, if they're already doomed to die, or am I giving them a better death than nature has? These questions wouldn't exist if we were all truly bound to an 'objective morality.' 'Right to die' arguments wouldn't be such a hot topic if there was a standard measuring tool not open to interpretation.

Let's say I would only ask if it fit my interpretation of 'do unto others.' I might (for the sake of argument) assume they already shared my viewpoint. Or perhaps I would assume I was genuinely doing what is best for the patient, and their opinion doesn't matter. They are sick, after all, and their demise is already assured through no fault of my own. I'm ending their pain. Really, from a survival standpoint, there's no harm in ending the suffering of someone who cannot survive. The species will go on. That's the problem with subjective things. We're not all using a standard measuring tool, although it may seem that way. The conclusion in my mind might be 100% correct, and remain correct when measured against the golden rule. How can it be objective when multiple, conflicting outcomes are possible?

(08-04-2014 10:07 AM)Artie Wrote:  Which we need cooperation and "friendship" and a stable society to get.

We do? How did our race survive to this point in evolution? Would someone today consider the habitat of a human 10,000 years ago "stable and friendly"? What do those words even mean, other than a personal interpretation of an ideal?

(08-04-2014 10:07 AM)Artie Wrote:  Where we need the cooperation and friendship of our family and friends and a stable society to make sure that our offspring has the best chances of surviving to produce new offspring.

All open to subjectivity. Cooperation can be gained through violent or peaceful means, as is demonstrated historically. Procreation and resources are the goal. If friendship and stability bring them about, we pursue those. If violence and instability bring them about, we pursue those. Humans are endlessly in conflict while attempting to achieve the same end goal: survival and procreation. This, by the way, ignores the additional problems for your argument caused by those who don't want to procreate, or live, or integrate with others. Can you say they're wrong when they simply follow their instinct as you do? Are they sick, or are you? Is there an objective way to measure?

Even instinct itself, if you truly followed it, goes against the golden rule. In this day and age, you have instincts that no longer serve you but were probably very useful thousands of years ago. Were you not in possession of today's subjective flavor of morality and societal pressure, you would probably be driven only by instinct.

I can achieve great success (procreation and resources) with the golden rule. I can achieve great success going against the golden rule. There is no shortage of examples for either case. I cannot see how that makes it an objective form of morality.

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes guitar_nut's post
08-04-2014, 10:49 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(08-04-2014 10:11 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(08-04-2014 10:03 AM)living thing Wrote:  Hello Artie, it is a pleasure to exchange views.

If eating a human child is right for a crocodile but wrong for a human being, why do we prevent crocodiles from eating human children? They're not human beings, it is objectively right (according to you) for them to eat human children.

By describing a behaviour as right from one point of view (that of a human being) and wrong from a different point of view (that of a crocodile), you are describing a subjective notion, at least in the sense that I use the word.

But who knows?

EDIT: Sorry Taq, I didn't see your post when I started typing mine. Have fun!

This is no less than the ninth time he has done this. Either he is retarded and does not understand the english language or he is just a troll. Between this and him not understanding what Binary means I am leaning towards just a troll and have since just stopped feeding him.

I'm thinking he has no critical thinking skills ... sort of like Drich.
It's like talking to a post. Don't waste your time.

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
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
08-04-2014, 10:50 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(08-04-2014 10:03 AM)living thing Wrote:  If eating a human child is right for a crocodile but wrong for a human being, why do we prevent crocodiles from eating human children?
1. Because if I was a child I would want somebody to prevent a crocodile from eating me. The Golden Rule.
2. Because we lose a potential valuable member of society who might increase all our chances of well-being and survival.
etc etc
Quote:They're not human beings, it is objectively right (according to you) for them to eat human children.
It is objectively moral for them to eat human children because they are crocodiles and not humans.
Quote:By describing a behaviour as right from one point of view (that of a human being) and wrong from a different point of view (that of a crocodile), you are describing a subjective notion, at least in the sense that I use the word.
The brain of a crocodile has been hard wired by evolution and natural selection which is an objective process to see eating children as right. They don't have any subjective say in it. They do it without thinking, without forming any subjective opinions whether this is right or wrong behavior for crocodiles. Our brains have been hard wired by evolution and natural selection which is an objective process to see losing a child to a crocodile as wrong. We don't sit down first to form some subjective opinions whether saving a child from a crocodile is right or wrong. If you have a split second to react and avoid a child being taken by a crocodile you do it on pure instinct because it's an objectively right action. Afterwards you can argue all day whether it was in your opinion a subjectively right action.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2014, 10:55 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(08-04-2014 10:50 AM)Artie Wrote:  The brain of a crocodile has been hard wired by evolution and natural selection which is an objective process to see eating children as right.

Actually it's a "process". It's neither "objective" nor "subjective. He's desperately slapping irrelevant labels on processes to make his idiot point. NOT one Evolutionary Biologist has ever once made that distinction. "Most" (but not all crocs) *may* like to eat certain things. Fine points and distinctions are WAY over this troll's head.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: