Total Posts:54|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Studies for deterrence and punishment

Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2011 7:28:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It is clear that punishment, in moderation, serves as a deterrent.

Unfortunately, i cannot find any studies. Does anybody have any?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2011 9:45:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/2/2011 7:28:42 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
It is clear that punishment, in moderation, serves as a deterrent.

Unfortunately, i cannot find any studies. Does anybody have any?

B.F. Skinner was the first to pursue research in the field.
Punishment is used in operant conditioning.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2011 10:27:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Just the idea alone makes sense. If the punishment for theft is 1 year, then you change it to 10 years, then change it to the death penalty, you're going to have less thefts happening each time the punishment is increased.

Violation of justice? Maybe. But its undoubtedly deterrence at work.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2011 10:42:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/2/2011 10:27:06 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
Just the idea alone makes sense. If the punishment for theft is 1 year, then you change it to 10 years, then change it to the death penalty, you're going to have less thefts happening each time the punishment is increased.

Not necessarily. Prison actually has a tendency to increase criminal behavior. There's something about putting a bunch of criminals together and living a lifestyle based on physical domination that changes your behavior and not necessarily for the better.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2011 11:14:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/2/2011 10:42:11 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/2/2011 10:27:06 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
Just the idea alone makes sense. If the punishment for theft is 1 year, then you change it to 10 years, then change it to the death penalty, you're going to have less thefts happening each time the punishment is increased.

Not necessarily. Prison actually has a tendency to increase criminal behavior. There's something about putting a bunch of criminals together and living a lifestyle based on physical domination that changes your behavior and not necessarily for the better.

This is true.

I think it would be more productive to find the cause of crime and approach that, rather than attempt to scare everyone into behaving. From tyrannical dictators to supernatural beings that live in some location mostly or entirely comprised of fire, it has never worked.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2011 11:40:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/2/2011 11:14:50 PM, Ren wrote:
At 11/2/2011 10:42:11 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/2/2011 10:27:06 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
Just the idea alone makes sense. If the punishment for theft is 1 year, then you change it to 10 years, then change it to the death penalty, you're going to have less thefts happening each time the punishment is increased.

Not necessarily. Prison actually has a tendency to increase criminal behavior. There's something about putting a bunch of criminals together and living a lifestyle based on physical domination that changes your behavior and not necessarily for the better.

This is true.

I think it would be more productive to find the cause of crime and approach that

Humans act to increase their well-being. If I steal, it doesn't necessarily mean there's some psychological troubled thing about me. It could just mean I steal because the material will bring me happiness. That isn't a difficult concept.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2011 11:55:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Here is a true and effective study in deterrence. If instituted as a form of punishment for violent crime and habitual offenders the US crime would drop by 75% over night. But we can't do things that work. We have to feel sorry for the criminal and sh!t on the victim.

http://www.liveleak.com...
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%
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2011 11:58:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/2/2011 10:42:11 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/2/2011 10:27:06 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
Just the idea alone makes sense. If the punishment for theft is 1 year, then you change it to 10 years, then change it to the death penalty, you're going to have less thefts happening each time the punishment is increased.

Not necessarily. Prison actually has a tendency to increase criminal behavior. There's something about putting a bunch of criminals together and living a lifestyle based on physical domination that changes your behavior and not necessarily for the better.

Right, but at that point we're talking about recidivism rather than deterrence. Though recidivism is somewhat relevant, I think OP is referring to deterring people from committing their first crime.

Of course, if you used the death penalty on thieves like I mentioned, there probably would be no reoffenders. The death penalty is 99% effective at preventing recidivism.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 12:01:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/2/2011 11:58:55 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
At 11/2/2011 10:42:11 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/2/2011 10:27:06 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
Just the idea alone makes sense. If the punishment for theft is 1 year, then you change it to 10 years, then change it to the death penalty, you're going to have less thefts happening each time the punishment is increased.

Not necessarily. Prison actually has a tendency to increase criminal behavior. There's something about putting a bunch of criminals together and living a lifestyle based on physical domination that changes your behavior and not necessarily for the better.

Right, but at that point we're talking about recidivism rather than deterrence. Though recidivism is somewhat relevant, I think OP is referring to deterring people from committing their first crime.

Yes, it should stop deterrece. However, since recidivism is highly relevent its theoretically possible to have increased crime rates, all other things equal, with increased prison rates.

Of course, if you used the death penalty on thieves like I mentioned, there probably would be no reoffenders. The death penalty is 99% effective at preventing recidivism.

Where's the 1% :p.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 12:02:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
But I do agree. People do tend to come out of prison worse than they were when they went in. Prison needs serious reform.
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 12:04:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 12:01:52 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/2/2011 11:58:55 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
At 11/2/2011 10:42:11 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/2/2011 10:27:06 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
Just the idea alone makes sense. If the punishment for theft is 1 year, then you change it to 10 years, then change it to the death penalty, you're going to have less thefts happening each time the punishment is increased.

Not necessarily. Prison actually has a tendency to increase criminal behavior. There's something about putting a bunch of criminals together and living a lifestyle based on physical domination that changes your behavior and not necessarily for the better.

Right, but at that point we're talking about recidivism rather than deterrence. Though recidivism is somewhat relevant, I think OP is referring to deterring people from committing their first crime.

Yes, it should stop deterrece. However, since recidivism is highly relevent its theoretically possible to have increased crime rates, all other things equal, with increased prison rates.

Recidivism is prevalent either way. Whether you send somebody to prison for 5 years or 10, they're still exposed to the prison environment. The difference is that the 10 year sentence would deter more people from committing the crime in the first place.

Of course, if you used the death penalty on thieves like I mentioned, there probably would be no reoffenders. The death penalty is 99% effective at preventing recidivism.

Where's the 1% :p.

Me :)
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 12:08:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 12:04:33 AM, BlackVoid wrote:
At 11/3/2011 12:01:52 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/2/2011 11:58:55 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
At 11/2/2011 10:42:11 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/2/2011 10:27:06 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
Just the idea alone makes sense. If the punishment for theft is 1 year, then you change it to 10 years, then change it to the death penalty, you're going to have less thefts happening each time the punishment is increased.

Not necessarily. Prison actually has a tendency to increase criminal behavior. There's something about putting a bunch of criminals together and living a lifestyle based on physical domination that changes your behavior and not necessarily for the better.

Right, but at that point we're talking about recidivism rather than deterrence. Though recidivism is somewhat relevant, I think OP is referring to deterring people from committing their first crime.

Yes, it should stop deterrece. However, since recidivism is highly relevent its theoretically possible to have increased crime rates, all other things equal, with increased prison rates.

Recidivism is prevalent either way. Whether you send somebody to prison for 5 years or 10, they're still exposed to the prison environment. The difference is that the 10 year sentence would deter more people from committing the crime in the first place.

The effect of recidivism might change based on length in prison environment along with other factors. Also, If you are charged with a crime, you don't necessarily go to prison.

Also whether a crime is considered a misdemeanor or felony is also prelevent in recidivism, since charging one with a felony can really f*ck someone's life up.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 12:14:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 12:08:44 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/3/2011 12:04:33 AM, BlackVoid wrote:
At 11/3/2011 12:01:52 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/2/2011 11:58:55 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
At 11/2/2011 10:42:11 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/2/2011 10:27:06 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
Just the idea alone makes sense. If the punishment for theft is 1 year, then you change it to 10 years, then change it to the death penalty, you're going to have less thefts happening each time the punishment is increased.

Not necessarily. Prison actually has a tendency to increase criminal behavior. There's something about putting a bunch of criminals together and living a lifestyle based on physical domination that changes your behavior and not necessarily for the better.

Right, but at that point we're talking about recidivism rather than deterrence. Though recidivism is somewhat relevant, I think OP is referring to deterring people from committing their first crime.

Yes, it should stop deterrece. However, since recidivism is highly relevent its theoretically possible to have increased crime rates, all other things equal, with increased prison rates.

Recidivism is prevalent either way. Whether you send somebody to prison for 5 years or 10, they're still exposed to the prison environment. The difference is that the 10 year sentence would deter more people from committing the crime in the first place.

The effect of recidivism might change based on length in prison environment along with other factors. Also, If you are charged with a crime, you don't necessarily go to prison.

Agreed. Its questionable though whether this outweighs the increased deterrence. If you buy that a longer sentence for crime deters that crime form happening, then you're also preventing recidivism. I can't reoffend if I never committed a crime in the first place.

Its tough to know exactly how much more likely recidivism is when you send someone to prison for 10 years instead of 5, but I'd say the difference is relatively small since 5 years in prison is plenty to become changed by the environment.


Also whether a crime is considered a misdemeanor or felony is also prelevent in recidivism, since charging one with a felony can really f*ck someone's life up.

True dat.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 12:19:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 12:14:38 AM, BlackVoid wrote:
At 11/3/2011 12:08:44 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/3/2011 12:04:33 AM, BlackVoid wrote:
At 11/3/2011 12:01:52 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/2/2011 11:58:55 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
At 11/2/2011 10:42:11 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/2/2011 10:27:06 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
Just the idea alone makes sense. If the punishment for theft is 1 year, then you change it to 10 years, then change it to the death penalty, you're going to have less thefts happening each time the punishment is increased.

Not necessarily. Prison actually has a tendency to increase criminal behavior. There's something about putting a bunch of criminals together and living a lifestyle based on physical domination that changes your behavior and not necessarily for the better.

Right, but at that point we're talking about recidivism rather than deterrence. Though recidivism is somewhat relevant, I think OP is referring to deterring people from committing their first crime.

Yes, it should stop deterrece. However, since recidivism is highly relevent its theoretically possible to have increased crime rates, all other things equal, with increased prison rates.

Recidivism is prevalent either way. Whether you send somebody to prison for 5 years or 10, they're still exposed to the prison environment. The difference is that the 10 year sentence would deter more people from committing the crime in the first place.

The effect of recidivism might change based on length in prison environment along with other factors. Also, If you are charged with a crime, you don't necessarily go to prison.

Agreed. Its questionable though whether this outweighs the increased deterrence. If you buy that a longer sentence for crime deters that crime form happening, then you're also preventing recidivism. I can't reoffend if I never committed a crime in the first place.

Its tough to know exactly how much more likely recidivism is when you send someone to prison for 10 years instead of 5, but I'd say the difference is relatively small since 5 years in prison is plenty to become changed by the environment.


True. I think the importance factor in recidivism is whether the person's punishment is prison or not. There are many variables involved, so its difficult to tell which effects are more predominant. Knowing that a certain effect will occur does not actually measure how large the effect will be.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 4:49:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm not familiar with many mass-murderers, serial killers, or spree killers who say "now, hold on a moment, if I get caught, I might get EXECUTED! Screw all that, I'll just go beat someone up and get less time in prison."

Raising punishment has diminishing marginal returns. The deterrence effect of going from "no punishment" to "one year in jail" is immense. The deterrence effect of going from "10 years in jail" to "11 years" does not.

The question, then, is how much marginal deterrence do we get from going from "life imprisonment" to "death penalty."

I would argue the amount is far too small to make a notable difference when you are dealing with criminals that might deserve the death penalty.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 11:49:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/2/2011 11:40:05 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Humans act to increase their well-being. If I steal, it doesn't necessarily mean there's some psychological troubled thing about me. It could just mean I steal because the material will bring me happiness. That isn't a difficult concept.

I personally believe that immorality is an indication of psychological unrest.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 11:55:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 11:49:59 PM, Ren wrote:
At 11/2/2011 11:40:05 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Humans act to increase their well-being. If I steal, it doesn't necessarily mean there's some psychological troubled thing about me. It could just mean I steal because the material will bring me happiness. That isn't a difficult concept.

I personally believe that immorality is an indication of psychological unrest.

People have different standards of morality. I personally find you to be a prick.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 12:14:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 11:55:45 PM, darkkermit wrote:
People have different standards of morality. I personally find you to be a prick.

Your personal opinions have nothing to do with morals, and I'm a moral objectivist, so people's varied interpretations of morality is irrelevant to me.

However, I do consider your unfounded negativity an indication of your perceived inferiority.

Chill out, youngin'. You don't know me.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 12:23:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 12:14:11 AM, Ren wrote:

Your personal opinions have nothing to do with morals, and I'm a moral objectivist, so people's varied interpretations of morality is irrelevant to me.

So how are your opinions on morality more important then other people's morals?

However, I do consider your unfounded negativity an indication of your perceived inferiority.

Chill out, youngin'. You don't know me.


This is exactly why your a prick. I've seen enough of your posts to conclude that your a prick. And I'm not exactly saying it out of any emotional purposes, I'm just saying that I generally think your a prick.

I could easily create an "objective" morality system in which case you'd be considered immoral person.

So are your immoral shortcomings a result of some sort of psychological disturbances?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 12:24:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 12:14:11 AM, Ren wrote:
Your personal opinions have nothing to do with morals, and I'm a moral objectivist, so people's varied interpretations of morality is irrelevant to me.

Objective morality is as absurd as objective beauty.

These things can only be measured from a relative standpoint. As soon as you define your standards for either, something can be measured against those standards objectively, but the standards themselves are arbitrary and have no real basis for objectivity.

This, what I'm saying, has nothing to do with subjective morality. What I'm describing is an objective fact. Objective morality as a concept is completely absurd.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 12:29:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 12:23:01 AM, darkkermit wrote:
So how are your opinions on morality more important then other people's morals?

Nonono. Your opinions -- and, to be more clear, about me -- have nothing whatsoever to do with morality. I don't consider any conclusions that I have personally made important. Importance, much like truth, is mostly derived from consensus.

However, I do consider your unfounded negativity an indication of your perceived inferiority.

Chill out, youngin'. You don't know me.


This is exactly why your a prick. I've seen enough of your posts to conclude that your a prick. And I'm not exactly saying it out of any emotional purposes, I'm just saying that I generally think your a prick.

*you're

You really didn't substantiate it at all. You see, you attacked me by literally calling me a prick. Did I say anything negative to you? No, I did not.

However, I did have a derisive answer, although I'd still consider it less harsh than your initial attack. That's all I can get from what you bolded.

However, I really don't care why you think I'm a prick, because I don't know you and you're generally irrelevant. Moreover, you're usually uninteresting.

On the other hand, I am willing to humor you if you're willing to actually tell me why you think I'm a prick. Why not? Speak your mind, kid.

I could easily create an "objective" morality system in which case you'd be considered immoral person.

Is that right? Please, do continue.

So are your immoral shortcomings a result of some sort of psychological disturbances?

Of course. For me to believe what I said, I would obviously have to believe that.

Do you believe that you are devoid of any psychological disturbances whatsoever?
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 12:32:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 12:24:23 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Objective morality is as absurd as objective beauty.

I consider neither absurd.

These things can only be measured from a relative standpoint. As soon as you define your standards for either, something can be measured against those standards objectively, but the standards themselves are arbitrary and have no real basis for objectivity.

I disagree. I believe that objective standards can be made for both, inasmuch as they can be made for truth, success, and reality.

This, what I'm saying, has nothing to do with subjective morality. What I'm describing is an objective fact. Objective morality as a concept is completely absurd.

What objective standards do you apply to objective fact?
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 12:32:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 12:24:23 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 11/4/2011 12:14:11 AM, Ren wrote:
Your personal opinions have nothing to do with morals, and I'm a moral objectivist, so people's varied interpretations of morality is irrelevant to me.

Objective morality is as absurd as objective beauty.

These things can only be measured from a relative standpoint. As soon as you define your standards for either, something can be measured against those standards objectively, but the standards themselves are arbitrary and have no real basis for objectivity.

This, what I'm saying, has nothing to do with subjective morality. What I'm describing is an objective fact. Objective morality as a concept is completely absurd.

I'm talking about failing to take into account the instrument you are using to measure.

Humans can only make sense of things by comparing one thing to another. This is not totally objective.

Morality is incapable of escaping this predicament. These are boxes and grids that we draw around reality as we perceive it. Believing these things to be real is a common mistake that all people make.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 12:36:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 12:32:55 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 11/4/2011 12:24:23 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 11/4/2011 12:14:11 AM, Ren wrote:
Your personal opinions have nothing to do with morals, and I'm a moral objectivist, so people's varied interpretations of morality is irrelevant to me.

Objective morality is as absurd as objective beauty.

These things can only be measured from a relative standpoint. As soon as you define your standards for either, something can be measured against those standards objectively, but the standards themselves are arbitrary and have no real basis for objectivity.

This, what I'm saying, has nothing to do with subjective morality. What I'm describing is an objective fact. Objective morality as a concept is completely absurd.

I'm talking about failing to take into account the instrument you are using to measure.

Humans can only make sense of things by comparing one thing to another. This is not totally objective.

Alright, I agree with all this...

Morality is incapable of escaping this predicament. These are boxes and grids that we draw around reality as we perceive it. Believing these things to be real is a common mistake that all people make.

No, it's not a mistake. It's a necessity.

There must be a reality, and there must be truth for us to set any standards for anything. There is evidence that we have revealed some of it, to an extent, through our ability to interact with it.

Therefore, we are slowly but surely revealing truth and reality for what it is, within the scope of the fragment we are capable of interpreting and understanding. The same can be said for truth and morality, and these are things that we must continue to work on until we have a functional set of principles in that regard, as well.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 12:36:34 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 12:32:00 AM, Ren wrote:

I disagree. I believe that objective standards can be made for both, inasmuch as they can be made for truth, success, and reality.


You can disagree all you'd like, but you'd be mistaken.

This, what I'm saying, has nothing to do with subjective morality. What I'm describing is an objective fact. Objective morality as a concept is completely absurd.

What objective standards do you apply to objective fact?

It's gotta be Truth with a capital T.

Really, if you understand what I'm saying, you'll also understand how difficult it would be for me to explain it. Read my last post, and if you have an objection or a question after that, I'll attempt to explain it better.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 12:37:34 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 12:36:04 AM, Ren wrote:
At 11/4/2011 12:32:55 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 11/4/2011 12:24:23 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 11/4/2011 12:14:11 AM, Ren wrote:
Your personal opinions have nothing to do with morals, and I'm a moral objectivist, so people's varied interpretations of morality is irrelevant to me.

Objective morality is as absurd as objective beauty.

These things can only be measured from a relative standpoint. As soon as you define your standards for either, something can be measured against those standards objectively, but the standards themselves are arbitrary and have no real basis for objectivity.

This, what I'm saying, has nothing to do with subjective morality. What I'm describing is an objective fact. Objective morality as a concept is completely absurd.

I'm talking about failing to take into account the instrument you are using to measure.

Humans can only make sense of things by comparing one thing to another. This is not totally objective.

Alright, I agree with all this...

Morality is incapable of escaping this predicament. These are boxes and grids that we draw around reality as we perceive it. Believing these things to be real is a common mistake that all people make.

No, it's not a mistake. It's a necessity.

There must be a reality, and there must be truth for us to set any standards for anything. There is evidence that we have revealed some of it, to an extent, through our ability to interact with it.

Therefore, we are slowly but surely revealing truth and reality for what it is, within the scope of the fragment we are capable of interpreting and understanding. The same can be said for truth and morality, and these are things that we must continue to work on until we have a functional set of principles in that regard, as well.

Btw, I say "truth and reality" and "truth and morality" to indicate truth in regard to both.

Because, really, what we're discussing right now is the nature of truth as it relates to the concepts reality and morality.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 12:39:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 12:36:34 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
You can disagree all you'd like, but you'd be mistaken.

I'm sorry, but you're going to have to substantiate that.

It's gotta be Truth with a capital T.

Really, if you understand what I'm saying, you'll also understand how difficult it would be for me to explain it. Read my last post, and if you have an objection or a question after that, I'll attempt to explain it better.

I believe I already replied to it...

...no, trust me, I understand. I don't actually expect you to get into a philosophical conversation about the nature of truth, per se, but rather, I'm hoping that you'll make it easier and acknowledge that the same "objective relativity" that applies to truth applies to morality. Therefore, if you acknowledge the existence of one, you'd have to acknowledge the other, as well.