Total Posts:58|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Morality

LR4N6FTW4EVA
Posts: 190
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2008 3:45:20 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
So, I've been reading the forums, and I've noticed a lot of moral subjectivists (I guess I could put it that way). I think subjectivism is stupid. For example, if one argues that morality is an illusion, or a concept only used to establish order, think about this...
With that view, you can't call anything wrong, and you go down the slippery slope. For example, if I believe 2+2=24963, why am I wrong? Because mathematics is an abstract concept, and it is not open for debate. Morality is an abstract concept as well, so that means that it has an objective right or wrong. While it is much more complex than math, the truth can still be found.

Thoughts?
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2008 3:49:28 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/14/2008 3:45:20 PM, LR4N6FTW4EVA wrote:
So, I've been reading the forums, and I've noticed a lot of moral subjectivists (I guess I could put it that way). I think subjectivism is stupid. For example, if one argues that morality is an illusion, or a concept only used to establish order, think about this...
With that view, you can't call anything wrong, and you go down the slippery slope. For example, if I believe 2+2=24963, why am I wrong? Because mathematics is an abstract concept, and it is not open for debate. Morality is an abstract concept as well, so that means that it has an objective right or wrong. While it is much more complex than math, the truth can still be found.

Thoughts?

I don't know if you were referring to me, but i am in no way a subjectivist. Morality doesn't correlate to anything objective that doesn't make subjective claims true. Ethics is a different issue.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2008 3:57:54 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
"
I don't know if you were referring to me, but i am in no way a subjectivist. "

Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much, considering the first clause :D.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
CiRrO
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2008 4:04:02 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
lol, at the last LD tournament, about the morally permissible topic, my affirmative opponenet argued moral subjectivism. So, in Cross-X I asked her "If moral subjectivism exists, then I have the moral right to shoot the judge?" She couldn't answer. Anyway, the point is that if moral subjectivism exists, then anarchy would erupt.
CiRrO
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2008 10:38:08 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/14/2008 10:18:13 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:
Well I would guess most people here would be moral relativists.

i am certainly not.
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2008 10:54:20 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/14/2008 10:38:08 PM, Zerosmelt wrote:
At 10/14/2008 10:18:13 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:
Well I would guess most people here would be moral relativists.

i am certainly not.

Most :)
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2008 11:02:47 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
"So, in Cross-X I asked her "If moral subjectivism exists, then I have the moral right to shoot the judge?""
Come on, that should have been easy... she should have just said... "Dumb***, subjective means YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS NOOB."

(non-mandatory disclosure statement... yarr, I'm an Objectivist!)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Posts: 190
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2008 3:44:58 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
I was referring to statements made by various people. I know this includes the Skeptic, Harlan and a few others.
You already know my argument (it was in the first post).
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2008 9:13:03 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/14/2008 3:45:20 PM, LR4N6FTW4EVA wrote:
With that view, you can't call anything wrong, and you go down the slippery slope. For example, if I believe 2+2=24963, why am I wrong? Because mathematics is an abstract concept, and it is not open for debate. Morality is an abstract concept as well, so that means that it has an objective right or wrong. While it is much more complex than math, the truth can still be found.

Thoughts?

Many different philosophies are abstract concepts, yet they have many different meanings to different people. Certain forms of art are abstract and also have different meanings to different people. Therefore, just because math has an objective right or wrong, it is not necessarily true that morality does. Your comparison does not necesarily correlate.
beem0r
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2008 9:22:36 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/14/2008 3:45:20 PM, LR4N6FTW4EVA wrote:
So, I've been reading the forums, and I've noticed a lot of moral subjectivists (I guess I could put it that way). I think subjectivism is stupid. For example, if one argues that morality is an illusion, or a concept only used to establish order, think about this...
With that view, you can't call anything wrong, and you go down the slippery slope. For example, if I believe 2+2=24963, why am I wrong? Because mathematics is an abstract concept, and it is not open for debate. Morality is an abstract concept as well, so that means that it has an objective right or wrong. While it is much more complex than math, the truth can still be found.

Thoughts?

So here's your argument:

Math is an abstract concept.
Math is absolute.
Morality is also an abstract concept, therefore it is absolute.

That's a flawed argument.

A is B
A is C
D is B

From those 3 premises, we cannot draw the conclusion that D is C

Morality is obviously subjective. Some people think it's wrong to be cannibalistic, some people think it's immoral to have sex with children, some people think it's always immoral to kill, etc. Morality is based strictly off of what each of us as individuals feels. There is nothing objective to base it off of. We could base it off of "What's best for society as a whole," but the very decision to base it off of that is subjective.

For those who claim morality is objective - what do we base it off of, and why?
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2008 9:27:35 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/16/2008 3:44:58 AM, LR4N6FTW4EVA wrote:
I was referring to statements made by various people. I know this includes the Skeptic, Harlan and a few others.
You already know my argument (it was in the first post).

The skeptic is a self proclaimed moral nihilist, not a subjectivist.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2008 10:15:40 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
For those who claim morality is objective - what do we base it off of, and why?

What promotes one's own life-- because, since human life requires volitional action, those who don't seek to live are already dead, and have no need of morality. Those who do live have chosen that they want to, and morality is the code for achieving that choice. The question of "Whether" morality is therefore not objective- but the question of "What" morality is.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2008 10:21:26 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/16/2008 10:15:40 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
For those who claim morality is objective - what do we base it off of, and why?

What promotes one's own life-- because, since human life requires volitional action, those who don't seek to live are already dead, and have no need of morality. Those who do live have chosen that they want to, and morality is the code for achieving that choice. The question of "Whether" morality is therefore not objective- but the question of "What" morality is.

so you don't believe in objective good and evil right?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2008 10:24:16 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
"
so you don't believe in objective good and evil right?"
Where do you get that from? There are clear, objective facts about what is good (what promotes one's life) and what is evil (what does not promote one's life). For example, eating some amount of food promotes my life. Eating rat poison does not. Making money promotes my life. Making enemies I don't already have by going on a killing spree, does not.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2008 10:42:01 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/16/2008 10:24:16 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
"
so you don't believe in objective good and evil right?"
Where do you get that from? There are clear, objective facts about what is good (what promotes one's life) and what is evil (what does not promote one's life). For example, eating some amount of food promotes my life. Eating rat poison does not. Making money promotes my life. Making enemies I don't already have by going on a killing spree, does not.

That is survival, not morality... Even those saying there is a 'morality' would not say that eating rat poison was either moral or immoral. Also, making money is good for your life. By your reasoning, moral. If you become a trillionaire or beyond, you are taking a portion of the world's wealth from many, many people. To those who are starving, you are immoral because you do not promote life.

That also necessarily puts all things irrelevent to promoting one's life (entertainment, friendship, etc.) in the category of immorality since they do not promote one's life.

This is not a good definition for 'morality'.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2008 10:45:22 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/16/2008 10:24:16 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
"
so you don't believe in objective good and evil right?"
Where do you get that from? There are clear, objective facts about what is good (what promotes one's life) and what is evil (what does not promote one's life). For example, eating some amount of food promotes my life. Eating rat poison does not. Making money promotes my life. Making enemies I don't already have by going on a killing spree, does not.

On killing:

By this reasoning, going on a secret killing spree is completely moral. Because no one knows it was you, you make no enemies.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2008 10:53:17 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
That is survival, not morality...

My morality IS a morality of survival... or as Francisco d'Anconia put it, "Ours is the code of life."

"If you become a trillionaire or beyond, you are taking a portion of the world's wealth from many, many people."
Mercantilism is SO 17th century. To "Make" money means to create wealth, not to "Take" it.

"
That also necessarily puts all things irrelevent to promoting one's life (entertainment, friendship, etc.) in the category of immorality since they do not promote one's life."
Human life, again, relies on volitional action- and thought. In order to think, it is useful to have a healthy consciousness. All of those aid in having a healthy consciousness :D
Further, if they were "irrelevant," they would be AMORAL, not immoral.

"
This is not a good definition for 'morality'."

"

By this reasoning, going on a secret killing spree is completely moral. Because no one knows it was you, you make no enemies."
Oh, but you can't know it's going to stay secret. Further, you also lose all the benefits you might have derived from trade with those people-- we need only look at the fruit of trade in front of us, this computer, to know it is of moral value to us than innocent corpses.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2008 10:54:47 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/16/2008 10:45:22 AM, JBlake wrote:
At 10/16/2008 10:24:16 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
"
so you don't believe in objective good and evil right?"
Where do you get that from? There are clear, objective facts about what is good (what promotes one's life) and what is evil (what does not promote one's life). For example, eating some amount of food promotes my life. Eating rat poison does not. Making money promotes my life. Making enemies I don't already have by going on a killing spree, does not.

On killing:

By this reasoning, going on a secret killing spree is completely moral. Because no one knows it was you, you make no enemies.

http://i54.photobucket.com...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2008 10:57:02 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
Eating rat poison is. Obviously, rat poison has it's uses for dealing with rats.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2008 10:58:42 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/16/2008 10:57:02 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Eating rat poison is. Obviously, rat poison has it's uses for dealing with rats.

You eating rat poison. But this would change if our bio-chemistry changed wouldn't it?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2008 11:01:49 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
But this would change if our bio-chemistry changed wouldn't it?

Yes, but that does not happen to be the case.

how is survival itself then a 'good' thing?
By simple definition, the good is that which promotes one's life. Those who do not seek to live have no need of the concept "good" anyway.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2008 11:23:04 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
It seems as though you are saying that morality is relative. If this is the case then you are going about it in an odd manner.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2008 11:28:19 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
"It seems as though you are saying that morality is relative."
How so? The same basic facts exist for all beings which have a need for morality :D.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2008 11:31:10 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/16/2008 11:28:19 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
"It seems as though you are saying that morality is relative."
How so? The same basic facts exist for all beings which have a need for morality :D.

But there is no unity. If i kill you, that act isn't evil for me, but it is for you.
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2008 11:33:54 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
Suppose i want to be promoted at my job bc it will really increase my ability to survive. The only thing is that You must die in order to me to be promoted bc you have the position i need. Logically then, The act of me killing you is objectively good for me and objectively bad for you.

what is that thing you like to say about god and contradictions again?
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2008 11:42:59 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/16/2008 11:28:19 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
"It seems as though you are saying that morality is relative."
How so? The same basic facts exist for all beings which have a need for morality :D.

As 0 points out, you are saying that morality is different for each person, based on their perspective. Wal-Mart hiring children in sweatshops for sub-par wages is good for its stockholders and CEOs, and therefore moral for them to do so.

John needs to feed himself and his family. John steals bread from Rahl. This is moral by John's standards, immoral by Rahl's standards.

That seems to be what you are saying. You are just taking a longer way of saying morality is relative.