If morality is subjective then can there really be an objective or even a general view on it? I would say no. With this morality would fall onto something like a spectrum which would then obscure the idea of right and wrong so much to the point of of not being able to determine if something was or was not morally right or wrong, Maybe even to the point where neither truely or purely exist.
If morality is subjective then can there really be an objective or even a general view on it? I would say no. With this morality would fall onto something like a spectrum which would then obscure the idea of right and wrong so much to the point of of not being able to determine if something was or was not morally right or wrong, Maybe even to the point where neither truly or purely exist.
Damn, Well thought out response.
I"m not saying morality is immoral, I"m just saying that with so many different people with different morals and ideas on what being right is, There"s no true way to have a generalised and objective concept of right and wrong.
When is it right to eat deadly poisonous mushrooms to stay healthy?
My definition of morality is survival balance, Not to much not to little. .
Well, You are right about something, Maybe religions are peoples failed attempts at reaching the ultimate right way of being, And we simply just havent gotten there yet, And so when we do, We will know who is right and wrong, But already here we can tell its not about believing who is right or wrong. . Cuz you could always just do that. . But whatever
I think that as long as there are wrong people there are right people, And they are all cursed, Like smokers and anti smokers. . What is a mathmatician without problems to solve
I do concede that if there is a religion that turns out to be true, That their teachings would turn out to prove my argument wrong, However, If morality is a human concept, There would be no true way to define it, Meaning that from any perspective, Eating a poisonous mushroom to stay healthy could be "right"" in one person"s mind and completely "wrong"" in another"s. This being said, No one"s actions can truly be judged as purely right and wrong. With this, You can"t define people as "right" or "wrong" people, The obvious counter argument would be that "Hitler was the most evil person to walk the Earth, Are you saying what he did was right? " and I"m not but still, There were some Germans that thought he was right and maybe if he won the war, We"d all be saying he was right but then again, We all probably wouldn"t be alive and the Earth would look a lot different. And to answer your last question, A mathematician is a human so with problems to solve, He"d do what he wants to do, Your occupation doesn"t define you.
If it were to be the case that morality happened to be entirely subjective, Then no, I see no way to correctly view it in an objective way because it itself is not objective. However, That does not mean that we shouldn't view it in an objective way in all cases. When going accordingly to law, We should place an objective standard for it to keep a relatively consistent legislation. In general, We should establish laws to keep the protection of certain people so that we can prosper, But that does not mean the person accused of a crime is in the moral wrong.
I also agree that if morality were to be subjective, There could be no general view on it. I don't see how it could possibly exist.
From a previous argument. . .
Recognising that one"s moral values are subjective does not diminish their strength. And it is the strength of moral conviction that leads to action, Not the philosophical view that one takes of the nature of those convictions.
If one accepts that there is no objective moral truth, And that all we have are subjective viewpoints, Then the only form of social organization that makes sense is democracy. If nobody can prove that their values are the right ones, Then the best we can do is let everyone have their say and put the matter to the vote. Proper ethics entails respect for the opinions of others and therefore bolsters a peaceable democratic system, Whereas the ethics of certainty (especially religious certainty) entails disrespect for the opinions of others and thereby furnishes a rationale for tyranny.
Two of the greatest achievements of Western Civilization are science and democracy. They have in common the admission of each person"s own fallibility, Which is psychologically a hard thing to do. In science, We must admit that our preconceived ideas about the external world might be mistaken, And that we must carry out scientific experiments to determine the truth. In democracy, We must admit that our cherished values and political convictions might be wrong, And that society should be governed by the majority, Albeit with safeguards for the rights of minorities.
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.
I also agree that if morality were to be subjective, There could be no general view on it. I don't see how it could possibly exist.
Recognising that one"s moral values are subjective does not diminish their strength. And it is the strength of moral conviction that leads to action, Not the philosophical view that one takes of the nature of those convictions.
If one accepts that there is no objective moral truth, And that all we have are subjective viewpoints, Then the only form of social organization that makes sense is democracy. If nobody can prove that their values are the right ones, Then the best we can do is let everyone have their say and put the matter to the vote. Proper ethics entails respect for the opinions of others and therefore bolsters a peaceable democratic system, Whereas the ethics of certainty (especially religious certainty) entails disrespect for the opinions of others and thereby furnishes a rationale for tyranny.
Two of the greatest achievements of Western Civilization are science and democracy. They have in common the admission of each person"s own fallibility, Which is psychologically a hard thing to do. In science, We must admit that our preconceived ideas about the external world might be mistaken, And that we must carry out scientific experiments to determine the truth. In democracy, We must admit that our cherished values and political convictions might be wrong, And that society should be governed by the majority, Albeit with safeguards for the rights of minorities.