Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Objective Moral Mantra?

BradK
Posts: 475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2014 3:16:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I saw this topic in another thread...I'm under the impression that morality is subjective. But some people like to argue that morality is objective.

It seems the only way to prove morality is objective however is to provide an example of a mantra, and prove it can't be contradicted. For example, a mantra might be:

* If two people would be affected by an action, and one person performs this action without consent of the other, it is wrong.

An example providing evidence of that would be if someone said "don't kill me" but his attacker did anyway. We'd all generally agree that this was immoral. But what if someone refuses a medication or vaccination that they need to live? Going against their will would be immoral if the person is mentally incapable of understanding why they need the medication.

---

I think if anyone wants to claim morality is objective, they need to provide both a mantra of morality, and prove that the mantra cannot be contradicted. Do you agree or disagree?
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 11:25:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/26/2014 3:16:33 AM, BradK wrote:
I saw this topic in another thread...I'm under the impression that morality is subjective. But some people like to argue that morality is objective.

It seems the only way to prove morality is objective however is to provide an example of a mantra, and prove it can't be contradicted. For example, a mantra might be:

* If two people would be affected by an action, and one person performs this action without consent of the other, it is wrong.

An example providing evidence of that would be if someone said "don't kill me" but his attacker did anyway. We'd all generally agree that this was immoral. But what if someone refuses a medication or vaccination that they need to live? Going against their will would be immoral if the person is mentally incapable of understanding why they need the medication.
I think if you come up with some other examples that would be more clarifying; as the definition of consent itself is a free will, but that doesn't cover the abnormalities.

---

I think if anyone wants to claim morality is objective, they need to provide both a mantra of morality, and prove that the mantra cannot be contradicted. Do you agree or disagree?
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 11:07:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/26/2014 3:16:33 AM, BradK wrote:
I saw this topic in another thread...I'm under the impression that morality is subjective. But some people like to argue that morality is objective.

It seems the only way to prove morality is objective however is to provide an example of a mantra, and prove it can't be contradicted. For example, a mantra might be:

* If two people would be affected by an action, and one person performs this action without consent of the other, it is wrong.

An example providing evidence of that would be if someone said "don't kill me" but his attacker did anyway. We'd all generally agree that this was immoral. But what if someone refuses a medication or vaccination that they need to live? Going against their will would be immoral if the person is mentally incapable of understanding why they need the medication.

---

I think if anyone wants to claim morality is objective, they need to provide both a mantra of morality, and prove that the mantra cannot be contradicted. Do you agree or disagree?

I'd disagree with the example given - I wouldn't interpret a murder as immoral just because the victim said, "Don't kill me". A serial killer can say, "don't kill me" if a vigilante catches up to him, does it mean it's immoral to kill the serial killer? I'd say not. Some would say yes - this is exactly why there is no objective morality. I would need some further information before saying such a murder is immoral. So I cannot agree with the absolute claim you made that all people would generally view it as immoral.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
BradK
Posts: 475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2014 8:34:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/30/2014 11:07:23 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 8/26/2014 3:16:33 AM, BradK wrote:
I saw this topic in another thread...I'm under the impression that morality is subjective. But some people like to argue that morality is objective.

It seems the only way to prove morality is objective however is to provide an example of a mantra, and prove it can't be contradicted. For example, a mantra might be:

* If two people would be affected by an action, and one person performs this action without consent of the other, it is wrong.

An example providing evidence of that would be if someone said "don't kill me" but his attacker did anyway. We'd all generally agree that this was immoral. But what if someone refuses a medication or vaccination that they need to live? Going against their will would be immoral if the person is mentally incapable of understanding why they need the medication.

---

I think if anyone wants to claim morality is objective, they need to provide both a mantra of morality, and prove that the mantra cannot be contradicted. Do you agree or disagree?

I'd disagree with the example given - I wouldn't interpret a murder as immoral just because the victim said, "Don't kill me". A serial killer can say, "don't kill me" if a vigilante catches up to him, does it mean it's immoral to kill the serial killer? I'd say not. Some would say yes - this is exactly why there is no objective morality. I would need some further information before saying such a murder is immoral. So I cannot agree with the absolute claim you made that all people would generally view it as immoral.

well the serial killer did an immoral killing in the first place so the serial killer has a moral debt to pay. I would at first thing that being killed pays MORE than the moral debt incurred by killing someone else, so a life for a life would be immoral.
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 11:04:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/31/2014 8:34:52 PM, BradK wrote:
At 8/30/2014 11:07:23 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 8/26/2014 3:16:33 AM, BradK wrote:
I saw this topic in another thread...I'm under the impression that morality is subjective. But some people like to argue that morality is objective.

It seems the only way to prove morality is objective however is to provide an example of a mantra, and prove it can't be contradicted. For example, a mantra might be:

* If two people would be affected by an action, and one person performs this action without consent of the other, it is wrong.

An example providing evidence of that would be if someone said "don't kill me" but his attacker did anyway. We'd all generally agree that this was immoral. But what if someone refuses a medication or vaccination that they need to live? Going against their will would be immoral if the person is mentally incapable of understanding why they need the medication.

---

I think if anyone wants to claim morality is objective, they need to provide both a mantra of morality, and prove that the mantra cannot be contradicted. Do you agree or disagree?

I'd disagree with the example given - I wouldn't interpret a murder as immoral just because the victim said, "Don't kill me". A serial killer can say, "don't kill me" if a vigilante catches up to him, does it mean it's immoral to kill the serial killer? I'd say not. Some would say yes - this is exactly why there is no objective morality. I would need some further information before saying such a murder is immoral. So I cannot agree with the absolute claim you made that all people would generally view it as immoral.

well the serial killer did an immoral killing in the first place so the serial killer has a moral debt to pay. I would at first thing that being killed pays MORE than the moral debt incurred by killing someone else, so a life for a life would be immoral.

aaaaaaand this is why there is no system of objective morality. You would deem it an immoral act, I would deem it as a justified act.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
BradK
Posts: 475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 1:43:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 6:54:33 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
"Love your neighbour as yourself" is pretty objective

no it's not because you haven't defined "love"
BradK
Posts: 475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 2:25:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 11:04:31 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 8/31/2014 8:34:52 PM, BradK wrote:
At 8/30/2014 11:07:23 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 8/26/2014 3:16:33 AM, BradK wrote:
I saw this topic in another thread...I'm under the impression that morality is subjective. But some people like to argue that morality is objective.

It seems the only way to prove morality is objective however is to provide an example of a mantra, and prove it can't be contradicted. For example, a mantra might be:

* If two people would be affected by an action, and one person performs this action without consent of the other, it is wrong.

An example providing evidence of that would be if someone said "don't kill me" but his attacker did anyway. We'd all generally agree that this was immoral. But what if someone refuses a medication or vaccination that they need to live? Going against their will would be immoral if the person is mentally incapable of understanding why they need the medication.

---

I think if anyone wants to claim morality is objective, they need to provide both a mantra of morality, and prove that the mantra cannot be contradicted. Do you agree or disagree?

I'd disagree with the example given - I wouldn't interpret a murder as immoral just because the victim said, "Don't kill me". A serial killer can say, "don't kill me" if a vigilante catches up to him, does it mean it's immoral to kill the serial killer? I'd say not. Some would say yes - this is exactly why there is no objective morality. I would need some further information before saying such a murder is immoral. So I cannot agree with the absolute claim you made that all people would generally view it as immoral.

well the serial killer did an immoral killing in the first place so the serial killer has a moral debt to pay. I would at first thing that being killed pays MORE than the moral debt incurred by killing someone else, so a life for a life would be immoral.

aaaaaaand this is why there is no system of objective morality. You would deem it an immoral act, I would deem it as a justified act.

why is capital punishment justified?
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 4:13:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 2:25:25 PM, BradK wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:04:31 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 8/31/2014 8:34:52 PM, BradK wrote:
At 8/30/2014 11:07:23 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 8/26/2014 3:16:33 AM, BradK wrote:
I saw this topic in another thread...I'm under the impression that morality is subjective. But some people like to argue that morality is objective.

It seems the only way to prove morality is objective however is to provide an example of a mantra, and prove it can't be contradicted. For example, a mantra might be:

* If two people would be affected by an action, and one person performs this action without consent of the other, it is wrong.

An example providing evidence of that would be if someone said "don't kill me" but his attacker did anyway. We'd all generally agree that this was immoral. But what if someone refuses a medication or vaccination that they need to live? Going against their will would be immoral if the person is mentally incapable of understanding why they need the medication.

---

I think if anyone wants to claim morality is objective, they need to provide both a mantra of morality, and prove that the mantra cannot be contradicted. Do you agree or disagree?

I'd disagree with the example given - I wouldn't interpret a murder as immoral just because the victim said, "Don't kill me". A serial killer can say, "don't kill me" if a vigilante catches up to him, does it mean it's immoral to kill the serial killer? I'd say not. Some would say yes - this is exactly why there is no objective morality. I would need some further information before saying such a murder is immoral. So I cannot agree with the absolute claim you made that all people would generally view it as immoral.

well the serial killer did an immoral killing in the first place so the serial killer has a moral debt to pay. I would at first thing that being killed pays MORE than the moral debt incurred by killing someone else, so a life for a life would be immoral.

aaaaaaand this is why there is no system of objective morality. You would deem it an immoral act, I would deem it as a justified act.

why is capital punishment justified?

It isn't capital punishment as I am not a state putting someone to death. I said a vigilante would kill the serial killer in the example given.

It'd be murder, a murder I'd deem as justified because his death would spare the countless victims who would fall prey if he was to continue his lifestyle as a serial killer instead of being killed by the vigilante.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
BradK
Posts: 475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 5:26:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 4:13:11 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 9/1/2014 2:25:25 PM, BradK wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:04:31 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 8/31/2014 8:34:52 PM, BradK wrote:
At 8/30/2014 11:07:23 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 8/26/2014 3:16:33 AM, BradK wrote:
I saw this topic in another thread...I'm under the impression that morality is subjective. But some people like to argue that morality is objective.

It seems the only way to prove morality is objective however is to provide an example of a mantra, and prove it can't be contradicted. For example, a mantra might be:

* If two people would be affected by an action, and one person performs this action without consent of the other, it is wrong.

An example providing evidence of that would be if someone said "don't kill me" but his attacker did anyway. We'd all generally agree that this was immoral. But what if someone refuses a medication or vaccination that they need to live? Going against their will would be immoral if the person is mentally incapable of understanding why they need the medication.

---

I think if anyone wants to claim morality is objective, they need to provide both a mantra of morality, and prove that the mantra cannot be contradicted. Do you agree or disagree?

I'd disagree with the example given - I wouldn't interpret a murder as immoral just because the victim said, "Don't kill me". A serial killer can say, "don't kill me" if a vigilante catches up to him, does it mean it's immoral to kill the serial killer? I'd say not. Some would say yes - this is exactly why there is no objective morality. I would need some further information before saying such a murder is immoral. So I cannot agree with the absolute claim you made that all people would generally view it as immoral.

well the serial killer did an immoral killing in the first place so the serial killer has a moral debt to pay. I would at first thing that being killed pays MORE than the moral debt incurred by killing someone else, so a life for a life would be immoral.

aaaaaaand this is why there is no system of objective morality. You would deem it an immoral act, I would deem it as a justified act.

why is capital punishment justified?

It isn't capital punishment as I am not a state putting someone to death. I said a vigilante would kill the serial killer in the example given.

It'd be murder, a murder I'd deem as justified because his death would spare the countless victims who would fall prey if he was to continue his lifestyle as a serial killer instead of being killed by the vigilante.

I'm thinking you contradicted yourself as you are not enforcing/advocating capital punishment, yet you say his death is justified. If his death is justified, why not kill him yourself then?
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 3:57:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 5:26:34 PM, BradK wrote:
At 9/1/2014 4:13:11 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 9/1/2014 2:25:25 PM, BradK wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:04:31 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 8/31/2014 8:34:52 PM, BradK wrote:
At 8/30/2014 11:07:23 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 8/26/2014 3:16:33 AM, BradK wrote:
I saw this topic in another thread...I'm under the impression that morality is subjective. But some people like to argue that morality is objective.

It seems the only way to prove morality is objective however is to provide an example of a mantra, and prove it can't be contradicted. For example, a mantra might be:

* If two people would be affected by an action, and one person performs this action without consent of the other, it is wrong.

An example providing evidence of that would be if someone said "don't kill me" but his attacker did anyway. We'd all generally agree that this was immoral. But what if someone refuses a medication or vaccination that they need to live? Going against their will would be immoral if the person is mentally incapable of understanding why they need the medication.

---

I think if anyone wants to claim morality is objective, they need to provide both a mantra of morality, and prove that the mantra cannot be contradicted. Do you agree or disagree?

I'd disagree with the example given - I wouldn't interpret a murder as immoral just because the victim said, "Don't kill me". A serial killer can say, "don't kill me" if a vigilante catches up to him, does it mean it's immoral to kill the serial killer? I'd say not. Some would say yes - this is exactly why there is no objective morality. I would need some further information before saying such a murder is immoral. So I cannot agree with the absolute claim you made that all people would generally view it as immoral.

well the serial killer did an immoral killing in the first place so the serial killer has a moral debt to pay. I would at first thing that being killed pays MORE than the moral debt incurred by killing someone else, so a life for a life would be immoral.

aaaaaaand this is why there is no system of objective morality. You would deem it an immoral act, I would deem it as a justified act.

why is capital punishment justified?

It isn't capital punishment as I am not a state putting someone to death. I said a vigilante would kill the serial killer in the example given.

It'd be murder, a murder I'd deem as justified because his death would spare the countless victims who would fall prey if he was to continue his lifestyle as a serial killer instead of being killed by the vigilante.

I'm thinking you contradicted yourself as you are not enforcing/advocating capital punishment, yet you say his death is justified. If his death is justified, why not kill him yourself then?

Why is capital punishment even relevant in this discussion? I provided an example of a vigilante killing a serial killer who begged him not too and how I believe the serial killers death is justified. You came in with capital punishment which, by definition, is not what I was talking about. I dunno what capital punishment has to do with anything in regards to the example I gave. Could you perhaps clarify a little as to why CP is relevant to what I've said so far?
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
BradK
Posts: 475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2014 5:53:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/2/2014 3:57:50 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 9/1/2014 5:26:34 PM, BradK wrote:
At 9/1/2014 4:13:11 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 9/1/2014 2:25:25 PM, BradK wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:04:31 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 8/31/2014 8:34:52 PM, BradK wrote:
At 8/30/2014 11:07:23 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 8/26/2014 3:16:33 AM, BradK wrote:
I saw this topic in another thread...I'm under the impression that morality is subjective. But some people like to argue that morality is objective.

It seems the only way to prove morality is objective however is to provide an example of a mantra, and prove it can't be contradicted. For example, a mantra might be:

* If two people would be affected by an action, and one person performs this action without consent of the other, it is wrong.

An example providing evidence of that would be if someone said "don't kill me" but his attacker did anyway. We'd all generally agree that this was immoral. But what if someone refuses a medication or vaccination that they need to live? Going against their will would be immoral if the person is mentally incapable of understanding why they need the medication.

---

I think if anyone wants to claim morality is objective, they need to provide both a mantra of morality, and prove that the mantra cannot be contradicted. Do you agree or disagree?

I'd disagree with the example given - I wouldn't interpret a murder as immoral just because the victim said, "Don't kill me". A serial killer can say, "don't kill me" if a vigilante catches up to him, does it mean it's immoral to kill the serial killer? I'd say not. Some would say yes - this is exactly why there is no objective morality. I would need some further information before saying such a murder is immoral. So I cannot agree with the absolute claim you made that all people would generally view it as immoral.

well the serial killer did an immoral killing in the first place so the serial killer has a moral debt to pay. I would at first thing that being killed pays MORE than the moral debt incurred by killing someone else, so a life for a life would be immoral.

aaaaaaand this is why there is no system of objective morality. You would deem it an immoral act, I would deem it as a justified act.

why is capital punishment justified?

It isn't capital punishment as I am not a state putting someone to death. I said a vigilante would kill the serial killer in the example given.

It'd be murder, a murder I'd deem as justified because his death would spare the countless victims who would fall prey if he was to continue his lifestyle as a serial killer instead of being killed by the vigilante.

I'm thinking you contradicted yourself as you are not enforcing/advocating capital punishment, yet you say his death is justified. If his death is justified, why not kill him yourself then?

Why is capital punishment even relevant in this discussion? I provided an example of a vigilante killing a serial killer who begged him not too and how I believe the serial killers death is justified. You came in with capital punishment which, by definition, is not what I was talking about. I dunno what capital punishment has to do with anything in regards to the example I gave. Could you perhaps clarify a little as to why CP is relevant to what I've said so far?

You support the serial killers death right? So why not kill him yourself? Or let me phrase it in an identical way. Would you push a button to disable a countdown timer that triggered an electric chair the guy was strapped into, or would you let it run down and do nothing to prevent the execution? You're the one who decides if this guy lives or dies basically. What do you choose?
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 7:21:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/26/2014 3:16:33 AM, BradK wrote:
I saw this topic in another thread...I'm under the impression that morality is subjective. But some people like to argue that morality is objective.

It seems the only way to prove morality is objective however is to provide an example of a mantra, and prove it can't be contradicted. For example, a mantra might be:

* If two people would be affected by an action, and one person performs this action without consent of the other, it is wrong.

An example providing evidence of that would be if someone said "don't kill me" but his attacker did anyway. We'd all generally agree that this was immoral. But what if someone refuses a medication or vaccination that they need to live? Going against their will would be immoral if the person is mentally incapable of understanding why they need the medication.

---

I think if anyone wants to claim morality is objective, they need to provide both a mantra of morality, and prove that the mantra cannot be contradicted. Do you agree or disagree?

I think it is impossible to assert that morality is objective without committing a logical fallacy. The morality of each person is precissely what that person considers to be good or bad, and therefore, by definition, morality would always be subjective and dependent of the point of view. The attempt I've seen in this forum to refer to morality as "objective" (and perhaps you have seen it too) is some members claiming that morality is born from God, and therefore there's just one real morality (objective) and infinite false moralities (subjective, as the atheistic moral according to these users). This is a fallacy, because if morality depends on the point of view of God, it still remains subjective.
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 2:46:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/3/2014 5:53:53 PM, BradK wrote:
At 9/2/2014 3:57:50 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 9/1/2014 5:26:34 PM, BradK wrote:
At 9/1/2014 4:13:11 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 9/1/2014 2:25:25 PM, BradK wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:04:31 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 8/31/2014 8:34:52 PM, BradK wrote:
At 8/30/2014 11:07:23 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 8/26/2014 3:16:33 AM, BradK wrote:
I saw this topic in another thread...I'm under the impression that morality is subjective. But some people like to argue that morality is objective.

It seems the only way to prove morality is objective however is to provide an example of a mantra, and prove it can't be contradicted. For example, a mantra might be:

* If two people would be affected by an action, and one person performs this action without consent of the other, it is wrong.

An example providing evidence of that would be if someone said "don't kill me" but his attacker did anyway. We'd all generally agree that this was immoral. But what if someone refuses a medication or vaccination that they need to live? Going against their will would be immoral if the person is mentally incapable of understanding why they need the medication.

---

I think if anyone wants to claim morality is objective, they need to provide both a mantra of morality, and prove that the mantra cannot be contradicted. Do you agree or disagree?

I'd disagree with the example given - I wouldn't interpret a murder as immoral just because the victim said, "Don't kill me". A serial killer can say, "don't kill me" if a vigilante catches up to him, does it mean it's immoral to kill the serial killer? I'd say not. Some would say yes - this is exactly why there is no objective morality. I would need some further information before saying such a murder is immoral. So I cannot agree with the absolute claim you made that all people would generally view it as immoral.

well the serial killer did an immoral killing in the first place so the serial killer has a moral debt to pay. I would at first thing that being killed pays MORE than the moral debt incurred by killing someone else, so a life for a life would be immoral.

aaaaaaand this is why there is no system of objective morality. You would deem it an immoral act, I would deem it as a justified act.

why is capital punishment justified?

It isn't capital punishment as I am not a state putting someone to death. I said a vigilante would kill the serial killer in the example given.

It'd be murder, a murder I'd deem as justified because his death would spare the countless victims who would fall prey if he was to continue his lifestyle as a serial killer instead of being killed by the vigilante.

I'm thinking you contradicted yourself as you are not enforcing/advocating capital punishment, yet you say his death is justified. If his death is justified, why not kill him yourself then?

Why is capital punishment even relevant in this discussion? I provided an example of a vigilante killing a serial killer who begged him not too and how I believe the serial killers death is justified. You came in with capital punishment which, by definition, is not what I was talking about. I dunno what capital punishment has to do with anything in regards to the example I gave. Could you perhaps clarify a little as to why CP is relevant to what I've said so far?

You support the serial killers death right? So why not kill him yourself? Or let me phrase it in an identical way. Would you push a button to disable a countdown timer that triggered an electric chair the guy was strapped into, or would you let it run down and do nothing to prevent the execution? You're the one who decides if this guy lives or dies basically. What do you choose?

I'd kill him to spare the world of any additional harm the serial killer would cause. The latter half of that statement being my justification for doing so. CP is relevent through state systems though - trial by jury - all that good stuff. I'm talking more along the lines of standing in a back alley with the guy and taking him out.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Osiris_Rosenthorne
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 3:26:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/26/2014 3:16:33 AM, BradK wrote:
I saw this topic in another thread...I'm under the impression that morality is subjective. But some people like to argue that morality is objective.

It seems the only way to prove morality is objective however is to provide an example of a mantra, and prove it can't be contradicted. For example, a mantra might be:

* If two people would be affected by an action, and one person performs this action without consent of the other, it is wrong.

An example providing evidence of that would be if someone said "don't kill me" but his attacker did anyway. We'd all generally agree that this was immoral. But what if someone refuses a medication or vaccination that they need to live? Going against their will would be immoral if the person is mentally incapable of understanding why they need the medication.

---

I think if anyone wants to claim morality is objective, they need to provide both a mantra of morality, and prove that the mantra cannot be contradicted. Do you agree or disagree?

Well, in my view, morality is that which leads to the least amount of suffering, while causing the least amount of suffering.
I probably hate everything you stand for - and on.
BradK
Posts: 475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 5:37:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 2:46:35 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 9/3/2014 5:53:53 PM, BradK wrote:
At 9/2/2014 3:57:50 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 9/1/2014 5:26:34 PM, BradK wrote:
At 9/1/2014 4:13:11 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 9/1/2014 2:25:25 PM, BradK wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:04:31 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 8/31/2014 8:34:52 PM, BradK wrote:
At 8/30/2014 11:07:23 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 8/26/2014 3:16:33 AM, BradK wrote:
I saw this topic in another thread...I'm under the impression that morality is subjective. But some people like to argue that morality is objective.

It seems the only way to prove morality is objective however is to provide an example of a mantra, and prove it can't be contradicted. For example, a mantra might be:

* If two people would be affected by an action, and one person performs this action without consent of the other, it is wrong.

An example providing evidence of that would be if someone said "don't kill me" but his attacker did anyway. We'd all generally agree that this was immoral. But what if someone refuses a medication or vaccination that they need to live? Going against their will would be immoral if the person is mentally incapable of understanding why they need the medication.

---

I think if anyone wants to claim morality is objective, they need to provide both a mantra of morality, and prove that the mantra cannot be contradicted. Do you agree or disagree?

I'd disagree with the example given - I wouldn't interpret a murder as immoral just because the victim said, "Don't kill me". A serial killer can say, "don't kill me" if a vigilante catches up to him, does it mean it's immoral to kill the serial killer? I'd say not. Some would say yes - this is exactly why there is no objective morality. I would need some further information before saying such a murder is immoral. So I cannot agree with the absolute claim you made that all people would generally view it as immoral.

well the serial killer did an immoral killing in the first place so the serial killer has a moral debt to pay. I would at first thing that being killed pays MORE than the moral debt incurred by killing someone else, so a life for a life would be immoral.

aaaaaaand this is why there is no system of objective morality. You would deem it an immoral act, I would deem it as a justified act.

why is capital punishment justified?

It isn't capital punishment as I am not a state putting someone to death. I said a vigilante would kill the serial killer in the example given.

It'd be murder, a murder I'd deem as justified because his death would spare the countless victims who would fall prey if he was to continue his lifestyle as a serial killer instead of being killed by the vigilante.

I'm thinking you contradicted yourself as you are not enforcing/advocating capital punishment, yet you say his death is justified. If his death is justified, why not kill him yourself then?

Why is capital punishment even relevant in this discussion? I provided an example of a vigilante killing a serial killer who begged him not too and how I believe the serial killers death is justified. You came in with capital punishment which, by definition, is not what I was talking about. I dunno what capital punishment has to do with anything in regards to the example I gave. Could you perhaps clarify a little as to why CP is relevant to what I've said so far?

You support the serial killers death right? So why not kill him yourself? Or let me phrase it in an identical way. Would you push a button to disable a countdown timer that triggered an electric chair the guy was strapped into, or would you let it run down and do nothing to prevent the execution? You're the one who decides if this guy lives or dies basically. What do you choose?

I'd kill him to spare the world of any additional harm the serial killer would cause. The latter half of that statement being my justification for doing so. CP is relevent through state systems though - trial by jury - all that good stuff. I'm talking more along the lines of standing in a back alley with the guy and taking him out.

then you are committing the same crime against him that he is committing. In our example it wasn't brought up but so far I guess the assumption has been that you, having the choice to kill him or not, are not actually on the victim list. If he was going to kill you, then yeah "ape morality" applies and you kill him before he kills you. But would you still kill him if he wasn't a threat to you? Suppose he's got a few murders under his belt already. How do you prove for certain that he's going to kill anyone again, if killing him is the supposed solution to the problem?
BradK
Posts: 475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 5:41:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 3:26:51 PM, Osiris_Rosenthorne wrote:

Well, in my view, morality is that which leads to the least amount of suffering, while causing the least amount of suffering.

too vague. What about pulling the plug on the life support of someone in your family who is basically in a coma and will never be anything more than a vegetable? Suppose someone else needs that life support machine, and they have a chance of recovering. Do you pull the plug? Suppose the other guy who needs it is some deadbeat criminal who contributes nothing to society... is his life valuable or not? How do you solve that one with your rule?
Osiris_Rosenthorne
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 5:46:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 5:41:40 PM, BradK wrote:
At 9/4/2014 3:26:51 PM, Osiris_Rosenthorne wrote:

Well, in my view, morality is that which leads to the least amount of suffering, while causing the least amount of suffering.

too vague. What about pulling the plug on the life support of someone in your family who is basically in a coma and will never be anything more than a vegetable? Suppose someone else needs that life support machine, and they have a chance of recovering. Do you pull the plug? Suppose the other guy who needs it is some deadbeat criminal who contributes nothing to society... is his life valuable or not? How do you solve that one with your rule?

You've effectively answered the question yourself, he contributes nothing towards alleviating suffering, so yes, you pull the plug.
I probably hate everything you stand for - and on.
BradK
Posts: 475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 8:18:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 5:46:26 PM, Osiris_Rosenthorne wrote:
At 9/4/2014 5:41:40 PM, BradK wrote:
At 9/4/2014 3:26:51 PM, Osiris_Rosenthorne wrote:

Well, in my view, morality is that which leads to the least amount of suffering, while causing the least amount of suffering.

too vague. What about pulling the plug on the life support of someone in your family who is basically in a coma and will never be anything more than a vegetable? Suppose someone else needs that life support machine, and they have a chance of recovering. Do you pull the plug? Suppose the other guy who needs it is some deadbeat criminal who contributes nothing to society... is his life valuable or not? How do you solve that one with your rule?

You've effectively answered the question yourself, he contributes nothing towards alleviating suffering, so yes, you pull the plug.

what about the family of the guy on life support? They will suffer emotional pain
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 3:43:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 5:37:17 PM, BradK wrote:
At 9/4/2014 2:46:35 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 9/3/2014 5:53:53 PM, BradK wrote:
At 9/2/2014 3:57:50 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 9/1/2014 5:26:34 PM, BradK wrote:
At 9/1/2014 4:13:11 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 9/1/2014 2:25:25 PM, BradK wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:04:31 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 8/31/2014 8:34:52 PM, BradK wrote:
At 8/30/2014 11:07:23 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 8/26/2014 3:16:33 AM, BradK wrote:
I saw this topic in another thread...I'm under the impression that morality is subjective. But some people like to argue that morality is objective.

It seems the only way to prove morality is objective however is to provide an example of a mantra, and prove it can't be contradicted. For example, a mantra might be:

* If two people would be affected by an action, and one person performs this action without consent of the other, it is wrong.

An example providing evidence of that would be if someone said "don't kill me" but his attacker did anyway. We'd all generally agree that this was immoral. But what if someone refuses a medication or vaccination that they need to live? Going against their will would be immoral if the person is mentally incapable of understanding why they need the medication.

---

I think if anyone wants to claim morality is objective, they need to provide both a mantra of morality, and prove that the mantra cannot be contradicted. Do you agree or disagree?

I'd disagree with the example given - I wouldn't interpret a murder as immoral just because the victim said, "Don't kill me". A serial killer can say, "don't kill me" if a vigilante catches up to him, does it mean it's immoral to kill the serial killer? I'd say not. Some would say yes - this is exactly why there is no objective morality. I would need some further information before saying such a murder is immoral. So I cannot agree with the absolute claim you made that all people would generally view it as immoral.

well the serial killer did an immoral killing in the first place so the serial killer has a moral debt to pay. I would at first thing that being killed pays MORE than the moral debt incurred by killing someone else, so a life for a life would be immoral.

aaaaaaand this is why there is no system of objective morality. You would deem it an immoral act, I would deem it as a justified act.

why is capital punishment justified?

It isn't capital punishment as I am not a state putting someone to death. I said a vigilante would kill the serial killer in the example given.

It'd be murder, a murder I'd deem as justified because his death would spare the countless victims who would fall prey if he was to continue his lifestyle as a serial killer instead of being killed by the vigilante.

I'm thinking you contradicted yourself as you are not enforcing/advocating capital punishment, yet you say his death is justified. If his death is justified, why not kill him yourself then?

Why is capital punishment even relevant in this discussion? I provided an example of a vigilante killing a serial killer who begged him not too and how I believe the serial killers death is justified. You came in with capital punishment which, by definition, is not what I was talking about. I dunno what capital punishment has to do with anything in regards to the example I gave. Could you perhaps clarify a little as to why CP is relevant to what I've said so far?

You support the serial killers death right? So why not kill him yourself? Or let me phrase it in an identical way. Would you push a button to disable a countdown timer that triggered an electric chair the guy was strapped into, or would you let it run down and do nothing to prevent the execution? You're the one who decides if this guy lives or dies basically. What do you choose?

I'd kill him to spare the world of any additional harm the serial killer would cause. The latter half of that statement being my justification for doing so. CP is relevent through state systems though - trial by jury - all that good stuff. I'm talking more along the lines of standing in a back alley with the guy and taking him out.

then you are committing the same crime against him that he is committing. In our example it wasn't brought up but so far I guess the assumption has been that you, having the choice to kill him or not, are not actually on the victim list. If he was going to kill you, then yeah "ape morality" applies and you kill him before he kills you. But would you still kill him if he wasn't a threat to you? Suppose he's got a few murders under his belt already. How do you prove for certain that he's going to kill anyone again, if killing him is the supposed solution to the problem?

If he was a threat to the general population - yes, I'd eliminate the threat. Also, it's not the same because I am not killing random people for pleasure, just killing one man to spare the lives of his potential victims.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
BradK
Posts: 475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 5:03:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 3:43:37 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 9/4/2014 5:37:17 PM, BradK wrote:
At 9/4/2014 2:46:35 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 9/3/2014 5:53:53 PM, BradK wrote:
At 9/2/2014 3:57:50 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 9/1/2014 5:26:34 PM, BradK wrote:
At 9/1/2014 4:13:11 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 9/1/2014 2:25:25 PM, BradK wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:04:31 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 8/31/2014 8:34:52 PM, BradK wrote:
At 8/30/2014 11:07:23 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 8/26/2014 3:16:33 AM, BradK wrote:
I saw this topic in another thread...I'm under the impression that morality is subjective. But some people like to argue that morality is objective.

It seems the only way to prove morality is objective however is to provide an example of a mantra, and prove it can't be contradicted. For example, a mantra might be:

* If two people would be affected by an action, and one person performs this action without consent of the other, it is wrong.

An example providing evidence of that would be if someone said "don't kill me" but his attacker did anyway. We'd all generally agree that this was immoral. But what if someone refuses a medication or vaccination that they need to live? Going against their will would be immoral if the person is mentally incapable of understanding why they need the medication.

---

I think if anyone wants to claim morality is objective, they need to provide both a mantra of morality, and prove that the mantra cannot be contradicted. Do you agree or disagree?

I'd disagree with the example given - I wouldn't interpret a murder as immoral just because the victim said, "Don't kill me". A serial killer can say, "don't kill me" if a vigilante catches up to him, does it mean it's immoral to kill the serial killer? I'd say not. Some would say yes - this is exactly why there is no objective morality. I would need some further information before saying such a murder is immoral. So I cannot agree with the absolute claim you made that all people would generally view it as immoral.

well the serial killer did an immoral killing in the first place so the serial killer has a moral debt to pay. I would at first thing that being killed pays MORE than the moral debt incurred by killing someone else, so a life for a life would be immoral.

aaaaaaand this is why there is no system of objective morality. You would deem it an immoral act, I would deem it as a justified act.

why is capital punishment justified?

It isn't capital punishment as I am not a state putting someone to death. I said a vigilante would kill the serial killer in the example given.

It'd be murder, a murder I'd deem as justified because his death would spare the countless victims who would fall prey if he was to continue his lifestyle as a serial killer instead of being killed by the vigilante.

I'm thinking you contradicted yourself as you are not enforcing/advocating capital punishment, yet you say his death is justified. If his death is justified, why not kill him yourself then?

Why is capital punishment even relevant in this discussion? I provided an example of a vigilante killing a serial killer who begged him not too and how I believe the serial killers death is justified. You came in with capital punishment which, by definition, is not what I was talking about. I dunno what capital punishment has to do with anything in regards to the example I gave. Could you perhaps clarify a little as to why CP is relevant to what I've said so far?

You support the serial killers death right? So why not kill him yourself? Or let me phrase it in an identical way. Would you push a button to disable a countdown timer that triggered an electric chair the guy was strapped into, or would you let it run down and do nothing to prevent the execution? You're the one who decides if this guy lives or dies basically. What do you choose?

I'd kill him to spare the world of any additional harm the serial killer would cause. The latter half of that statement being my justification for doing so. CP is relevent through state systems though - trial by jury - all that good stuff. I'm talking more along the lines of standing in a back alley with the guy and taking him out.

then you are committing the same crime against him that he is committing. In our example it wasn't brought up but so far I guess the assumption has been that you, having the choice to kill him or not, are not actually on the victim list. If he was going to kill you, then yeah "ape morality" applies and you kill him before he kills you. But would you still kill him if he wasn't a threat to you? Suppose he's got a few murders under his belt already. How do you prove for certain that he's going to kill anyone again, if killing him is the supposed solution to the problem?

If he was a threat to the general population - yes, I'd eliminate the threat. Also, it's not the same because I am not killing random people for pleasure, just killing one man to spare the lives of his potential victims.

Yes but if you kill him, on only the chance that he will kill someone else, I think that's immoral and uncivilized. If he's barbaric and violent and uncivilized, then it a shame and we should lock him up in a cell. It's uncivilized to murder people to solve problems. That's what the lesser animals do. I think if you support killing people you are uncivilized. The serial killer doesn't deserve a fancy cell, just a bed, meals, iron bars and a book or something to pass the time. We could even put him to work, maybe doing some labour or something so he's productive (like a workout bike that generates electricity). If we kill people to solve a problem, it just means we are stupid animals who can't think of anything better.
neptune1bond
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 5:32:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
In order for something to be objective, it first must exist outside the thoughts and opinions of living beings. In other words, the only way something can even possibly be objective is if it actually has a physical presence and/or actually play out in the physical word independent of living beings. Since morality of any sort does not actually exist outside the thoughts and opinions of living beings there is literally no way for it to be anything but subjective. We can argue which moral value is the better moral value, but there is no way to actually say that any moral value is THE objectively true moral value on any given subject of morality.
Osiris_Rosenthorne
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 7:40:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 8:18:28 PM, BradK wrote:
At 9/4/2014 5:46:26 PM, Osiris_Rosenthorne wrote:
At 9/4/2014 5:41:40 PM, BradK wrote:
At 9/4/2014 3:26:51 PM, Osiris_Rosenthorne wrote:

Well, in my view, morality is that which leads to the least amount of suffering, while causing the least amount of suffering.

too vague. What about pulling the plug on the life support of someone in your family who is basically in a coma and will never be anything more than a vegetable? Suppose someone else needs that life support machine, and they have a chance of recovering. Do you pull the plug? Suppose the other guy who needs it is some deadbeat criminal who contributes nothing to society... is his life valuable or not? How do you solve that one with your rule?

You've effectively answered the question yourself, he contributes nothing towards alleviating suffering, so yes, you pull the plug.

what about the family of the guy on life support? They will suffer emotional pain

Really? You never mentioned it. So would the family of the other guy too. Plus, a criminal contributes towards suffering, which leads to a negative contribution on top of that as well.
I probably hate everything you stand for - and on.
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 8:19:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
You can never win an objective moral argument. The subjective will always win. there is no right or wrong.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 8:25:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 8:19:44 PM, sadolite wrote:
You can never win an objective moral argument. The subjective will always win. there is no right or wrong.

For example: It is neither right nor wrong to rape and murder a 2 year old. There is only the willingness to suffer the consequences of doing so, if infact there are any.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 11:25:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 5:03:57 PM, BradK wrote:
Yes but if you kill him, on only the chance that he will kill someone else, I think that's immoral and uncivilized.

The example was dealing with a vigilante and serial killer, now it has shifted to me acting as the vigilante, considering that I know he is a serial killer and considering that I am a vigilante it's pretty reasonable to assume I don't depend on the law like "civilized" people (if that's seriously your standard for what is civil).

If he's barbaric and violent and uncivilized, then it a shame and we should lock him up in a cell.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

That's a link to the definition of vigilante. Perhaps it will shed some light as to why I am combating your view of locking him in a cell via handing him over to the authorities vs. taking care of him myself. In case you don't feel like reading the definition or acknowledging it - vigilantes take the law into their own hand due to feeling the authorities are inadequate.

It's uncivilized to murder people to solve problems. That's what the lesser animals do.

Really? Lesser animals murder?

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

That's a link to the definition of murder. Read it and then think hard about what you've just said.

Also, considering the premeditated nature - it'd be situational in the case of the vigilante and serial killer, depending solely on whether the vigilante hunted down the serial killer with the intent to kill him or whether he happened upon one whose nature was revealed to him and he acted in the moment. If it's the latter, then it wouldn't be premeditated.

I think if you support killing people you are uncivilized.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

That's the definition for uncivilized. Check it out.

I think this boils down to an issue on morality. This is due to cultural and societal norms mostly finding root in the system of morals found within the community. For instance, it was a cultural norm for the Aztecs to perform ritual murder. Did they view this murder as morally bad? No. In fact, they believed such sacrifices led to the betterment of the community thus it's safe to say they were actually striving for that which they deemed good. Hence it was accepted as a cultural norm - because they found it morally permissible.

Now, you deem it as morally impermissible. Which is why you view it as uncivilized. It also goes against modern social and cultural norms in at-least western societies. So, I would assume that most would agree that the act of killing is uncivilized. Unfortunately for you, I do not. I believe that in the scenario given, it is morally permissible to kill the serial killer.

The serial killer doesn't deserve a fancy cell, just a bed, meals, iron bars and a book or something to pass the time. We could even put him to work, maybe doing some labour or something so he's productive (like a workout bike that generates electricity).

This is again, your opinion based on your own moral standards. I do not believe he deserves to live. Why should he be allowed to pass his time, when he has robbed others of their own time? I do not see it as a justified punishment.

If we kill people to solve a problem, it just means we are stupid animals who can't think of anything better.

In the case I presented, it would be an immediate and permanent solution to a threatening force. Serial killers have no right to walk this Earth when they view life with such little regard that they have robbed others of theirs. Furthermore, look around - our world is in a perpetual state of war. If you're a Christian, then killing has been happening since the first generation of man. If you're not, then killing has been happening since the first two tribes attempted to secure the same food source.

Humans are animals. So it's essentially you just calling the act of killing as stupid. I'd say that the art of killing has both beneficial and harmful elements. But to view it as stupid is foolish. I'd highly recommend reading 'The Prince' by Machiavelli to inform yourself on just how brilliant killing can be when applied appropriately. To say it's stupid is situational at best.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
neptune1bond
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 7:32:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 8:25:20 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/5/2014 8:19:44 PM, sadolite wrote:
You can never win an objective moral argument. The subjective will always win. there is no right or wrong.

For example: It is neither right nor wrong to rape and murder a 2 year old. There is only the willingness to suffer the consequences of doing so, if infact there are any.

Don't confuse subjective with not existing at all. Human beings are very social animals and therefor have natural instincts that encourage positive social connections. We literally are born with an innate sense of how to appropriately interact and empathize with others and the majority of people actually have an innate repulsion towards antisocial behavior. There are obvious reasons to believe that these instincts play a strong role in the survival of our species. There is also obvious reason to believe that people who exhibit antisocial behavior are either malformed, handicapped, or developed poorly as a child since our species only exists today as a result of social behaviors rather than antisocial ones.

It also goes against all logic and reason to say that raping and murdering a 2-year old is neither right nor wrong. In order for an action to be logical and reasonable you actually have to have a logical reason for that action and it must outweigh the reasons for acting differently. Good moral philosophy determines better actions through reason, not just how someone "feels". The more logical way of acting is the more "right" way of acting. Also, actions create results and to pretend that results are arbitrary and have no connection to the action would obviously make no sense. The "right" actions are the ones that lead to the most benefit, survival being the benefit of primary importance in almost all circumstances and following that would be the quality of survival. The more survival and the better quality of the survival the more "moral" it is. The antisocial behaviors or rapists and murderers are completely illogical and destructive. Illogicality is practically the only criteria for determining that something is indeed "wrong", and logicality is practically the only criteria for determining that something is "right" in almost every area, whether scientific or philosophical. Therefor we actually can conclude that certain thoughts or actions are indeed "right" or "wrong" based on their logic and the reasons behind them.
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 9:03:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 7:32:32 AM, neptune1bond wrote:
At 9/5/2014 8:25:20 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/5/2014 8:19:44 PM, sadolite wrote:
You can never win an objective moral argument. The subjective will always win. there is no right or wrong.

For example: It is neither right nor wrong to rape and murder a 2 year old. There is only the willingness to suffer the consequences of doing so, if infact there are any.

Don't confuse subjective with not existing at all. Human beings are very social animals and therefor have natural instincts that encourage positive social connections. We literally are born with an innate sense of how to appropriately interact and empathize with others and the majority of people actually have an innate repulsion towards antisocial behavior. There are obvious reasons to believe that these instincts play a strong role in the survival of our species. There is also obvious reason to believe that people who exhibit antisocial behavior are either malformed, handicapped, or developed poorly as a child since our species only exists today as a result of social behaviors rather than antisocial ones.

It also goes against all logic and reason to say that raping and murdering a 2-year old is neither right nor wrong. In order for an action to be logical and reasonable you actually have to have a logical reason for that action and it must outweigh the reasons for acting differently. Good moral philosophy determines better actions through reason, not just how someone "feels". The more logical way of acting is the more "right" way of acting. Also, actions create results and to pretend that results are arbitrary and have no connection to the action would obviously make no sense. The "right" actions are the ones that lead to the most benefit, survival being the benefit of primary importance in almost all circumstances and following that would be the quality of survival. The more survival and the better quality of the survival the more "moral" it is. The antisocial behaviors or rapists and murderers are completely illogical and destructive. Illogicality is practically the only criteria for determining that something is indeed "wrong", and logicality is practically the only criteria for determining that something is "right" in almost every area, whether scientific or philosophical. Therefor we actually can conclude that certain thoughts or actions are indeed "right" or "wrong" based on their logic and the reasons behind them.

"It also goes against all logic and reason to say that raping and murdering a 2-year old is neither right nor wrong." Then morality is not subjective.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Vision13
Posts: 38
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 10:22:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
No proposal is objective or true because we cannot demonstrate any proposal even the pythagorean theorem. All proposal are subjectiv, we cannot demonstrate if it's true or false.
So, we can summarize by this proposal :
'Each proposal is subjectiv and cannot be demonstrated even this one'
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 11:25:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 10:22:09 AM, Vision13 wrote:
No proposal is objective or true because we cannot demonstrate any proposal even the pythagorean theorem. All proposal are subjectiv, we cannot demonstrate if it's true or false.
So, we can summarize by this proposal :
'Each proposal is subjectiv and cannot be demonstrated even this one'

You said basically the same thing I did earlier. The subjective argument is unbeatable.

I find it interesting that the subjective moral argument was basically born from genocide. It depends on what side you are on when millions are being raped slaughtered. But when you say raping and murdering a 2 year old this is some how different.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%