Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

morality

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2012 2:47:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
"Subjective" and "relative" are interchangeable terms.

"Objective" implies that something true regardless of opinion.

"Subjective" implies that the truth of something is dependent upon opinion.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
revdox
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2012 3:41:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/16/2012 2:47:14 AM, FREEDO wrote:
"Subjective" and "relative" are interchangeable terms.

You are correct on the definition of objective and subjective morality. However relative is not interchangeable with subjective.
Relative morality is when morality changes with situation.
Take fore example theft. Specifically food theft. A rich kid who has food at home stealing bread is a crime, but a poor kid who has not eaten in 2 days is survival. The crime becomes letting that child die of hunger.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2012 8:41:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/16/2012 2:44:36 AM, Smithereens wrote:
I have no idea what objective, subjective and relative morality is. Enlighten me please. :)

In the context of the morality debate, subjective and relative tend to be used synonymously in opposition to objective.The way these distictions are typically used, is a matter of debate as to whether morality is culturally defined and therefore, relative , or whether there are moral imperatives that are a matter of natural law and therefore, objective.

I think the argument comes down to whether or not there are objective values " values that hold for everyone and that are more than matters of personal choice and opinion " that can be apprehended in and through ordinary experience.

It tends to be contrasted with a statement along the lines of, "There are no objective values - values that would exist independently of the existence of human beings"

Of course, in the world of internet debate, the argument is usually about whether morality is defined by God or not, and if so, then atheism means there is no basis for morality, which is usually a matter of both sides blustering a bunch of nonsense at each other.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2012 11:06:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think that ultimately, whether morality is objective or subjective depends on whether one believes that morality was discovered or contrived. If it were discovered, then the next logical step would be to refer to the source of this discovery, so that we can learn more about it and better perfect it. If it were contrived, however, it's robbed of validity, because any moral stance that doesn't derive from yourself ultimately becomes you relinquishing your motives to the opinions of other people, which is easy to deal with when you agree, but impossible to surmise when you don't.

Well, my opinion is that morality is neither discovered nor contrived. It's innate. From an outside perspective, separate of humans, conversation is a contrivance, too. It's every bit as subjective, and yet, a very real part of our everyday lives that was can scarcely live without.
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2012 4:40:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/16/2012 11:06:19 AM, Ren wrote:
I think that ultimately, whether morality is objective or subjective depends on whether one believes that morality was discovered or contrived. If it were discovered, then the next logical step would be to refer to the source of this discovery, so that we can learn more about it and better perfect it. If it were contrived, however, it's robbed of validity, because any moral stance that doesn't derive from yourself ultimately becomes you relinquishing your motives to the opinions of other people, which is easy to deal with when you agree, but impossible to surmise when you don't.

Well, my opinion is that morality is neither discovered nor contrived. It's innate. From an outside perspective, separate of humans, conversation is a contrivance, too. It's every bit as subjective, and yet, a very real part of our everyday lives that was can scarcely live without.

It is impossible to tell whether or not morality is innate or discovered/contrived. You would have to chime in your opinion as a newborn, which isn't possible.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
revdox
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2012 4:51:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/16/2012 4:40:11 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:

It is impossible to tell whether or not morality is innate or discovered/contrived. You would have to chime in your opinion as a newborn, which isn't possible.

Using that argument we can say it is more likely discovered or contrived. A newborn has no moral standing. All they care about is food and sleep. How they get them they do not care, only that they do.

Because of this we can not say morals are an innate part of our make up. Rather they are more of a learned trait.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2012 9:21:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/16/2012 4:40:11 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 10/16/2012 11:06:19 AM, Ren wrote:
I think that ultimately, whether morality is objective or subjective depends on whether one believes that morality was discovered or contrived. If it were discovered, then the next logical step would be to refer to the source of this discovery, so that we can learn more about it and better perfect it. If it were contrived, however, it's robbed of validity, because any moral stance that doesn't derive from yourself ultimately becomes you relinquishing your motives to the opinions of other people, which is easy to deal with when you agree, but impossible to surmise when you don't.

Well, my opinion is that morality is neither discovered nor contrived. It's innate. From an outside perspective, separate of humans, conversation is a contrivance, too. It's every bit as subjective, and yet, a very real part of our everyday lives that was can scarcely live without.

It is impossible to tell whether or not morality is innate or discovered/contrived. You would have to chime in your opinion as a newborn, which isn't possible.

A newborn?

So, are you saying that walking is subjective and contrived as well? :\
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2012 9:31:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/16/2012 2:47:14 AM, FREEDO wrote:
"Subjective" and "relative" are interchangeable terms.

The Fool: Not their not supposed to be but they have been DUMBED DOWNED by inconsistent use of the language. Relative is universal to subjectivism. That is, the conception of subjectivism is logically depended on relativism, But not the other way around. For relative follow by necessity of two things. For everything is relative to another. Relativism is that which necessitates subjectivism. AKa we can work with the conception of relativism without subjective. But subjectivism Makes no sense without relativism. And relativism is a Universal. So you should be able to get my drift. Or at least that is the word on The Hill. Take it for what its worth.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2012 9:36:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
There is nothing in this universe, that I have found, consisting of a bare privilege without an accompanying responsibility to offset said privilege. Morality, at its deepest roots, then, is derived from this relationship. The capacity to think rationally is a privilege, and morality is the responsibility that comes with it. Those with higher intelligence must accept a higher duty towards morality. Of course there is then the task of identifying exactly how to act morally, but that again becomes more clear as well with higher intelligence. I have tried in vein to explain morality to the DDO community, however I suppose my own argument here precludes them from understanding it...
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.