|
Post by Sonnington on Jun 21, 2016 2:33:01 GMT
In response to the discussion on morality, yes, it is subjective. Certainly we inherit the morals of our society, but as indivuduals we adapt and change them as we see fit in a situation. Thus, morals are subjective and context sensitive. Using the example of the Orlander shooter, while I'm not condoning mass murder, we don't know whether the shooter's actions seemed morally acceptable to him, because we never lived his life. It's easy to stand outside with the masses and say his actions were wrong (and from a societal level, they absolutely were), but we never experienced his life the way he did, so perhaps his actions seemed morally acceptable because of his life experiences. The same can be applied to Crayman blowing up the capital. Killing all the people living there, if we take their perspectives, is morally wrong because mass murder is not a morally acceptable thing to do by our (and probably their) society. Viewed from Crayman's perspective, however, where he saw how corrupt the Empire had become, the action is morally acceptable because the world needed to be rid of this tyrannical socitey to begin anew. Hence the game's moral ambiguity that Martiniii spoke of. Thus, morality is subjective due to personal perspectives and the context in which they are formed. But at the same time society has general agreed upon statements of morality, which we alter to suit our situation. So there are different levels of morality. As for whether eating meat is wrong, that's up to the morals of the individual. For example, I don't see the eating of meat as wrong. What I see as wrong about eating meat, though, is the way animals are mistreated in order for us to be able eat them. Thus, in my perspective, it's the industrialisation, or lack of sympathy towards animals, of only seeing them as products and not the living creatures they are, that is the moral dilema. Other people see animals as lesser beings, so they see no moral issues with this. Again, another demonstration of the ambiguity and subjectiveness of morals. I agree with almost everything you're saying except for your etymology and perspective on subjectivity and objectivity. I've already explained my position on the definition of morality in my post starting with an asterisk. I'd be interested in hearing you rebuke the definition. There's two main issues with the perspective of subjective morality. First the idea that morality is subjective because the most moral decision changes over time is fallacious. For instance, if you put me in a room with a door and a small window and you ask me which is the easiest exit to the room, the objective answer is the door. If you then board the door up and ask me, the objective answer is the window. That doesn't mean the answer is subjective. That means the environment changed which changed the objective answer. The second issue I take with the perspective of subjective morality is the logical application. If you respect subjective morality then the logical conclusion is your morality is no better than anyone else's. This will inevitably lead to a breakdown of society, which is the exact reason morality exists in the first place, which I explained in my asterisked post. When we respect subjective morality we have the HAE movement stating morbid obesity is healthy. Or you have Obama equate the radical Islamic terrorists who killed the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists at the same level of evil as the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists who made fun of Mohamed. www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAwMpL7POyoNow, correct me if I'm wrong, but the issue you guys seem to have is something along the lines of, if a starving man steals and apple to stay alive it's moral to him, while the man with the apple sees it as immoral to have been stolen from. You're trying to tell me there's no right or wrong in this scenario and it's a matter of perspective, and worried that a hard lined objective perspective on morality would automatically indict one party unfairly. Which isn't an unfair scenario to bring up. It's actually quite interesting and insightful if I do say so myself. When we agree upon the definition I've presented, then there is definitely a right and wrong party involved. Certainly allowing death is less moral than stealing. But, was stealing the -only- option? If you let the starving man get away with it once, does it encourage theft? Does that put a burden on society that decreases the quality and longevity of other's lives? There's many unknowable factors involved, but because we don't understand all the factors, because the answer isn't clear doesn't mean there isn't a right answer. Like walking around in the dark to get to the bathroom, there's always an objectively optimal path that won't stub your toe even if you don't -know- what path that is.
|
|
|
Post by Sonnington on Jun 20, 2016 5:04:15 GMT
It might just be rock, paper, scissor, but the videos are the highest of quality. I played this game once before and narrator is absolutely correct; the computer blatantly cheats. This rock
In all honesty, why do these games exist? A company, a group of people, some sort of investors, or a bank had to put money into making these slideshow, barely even game... things. Someone had to say, "Yes, this makes sense to me, this will make me money." I know Japan has weird porn laws, but what demographic has a game console, doesn't have a VHS player and won't buy magazines?
|
|
|
Post by Sonnington on Jun 18, 2016 1:55:13 GMT
This gave me a chuckle. I've taken plenty of multiple choice tests that asked me for an objective 'best' answer. At this point in online debates I can't help but wonder if people are trolling me or just grasping at straws because they refuse to change their view. It feels like you're arguing for the sake of argument.
This is getting boring, but I'll play devil's advocate and believe you're genuine in your response this one last time. Lets say you have two songs a group of 10 people can listen to. 6 people like song A and 6 people dislike song Z. Song A is objectively the best song for the group to listen to.
|
|
|
Post by Sonnington on Jun 18, 2016 0:04:23 GMT
I don't understand what you're trying to say in your post...
Let me give you an analogy. If I ask you, "What's the best song in the world?" You will logically and rightfully tell me it's subjective, everyone has their own personal taste in music. Then I qualify my question and ask you, "What's the best song in the world that the largest number of people will enjoy listening to?" Even if you don't have the answer, there's still a singular objective answer to that question.
That's exactly what I've done in my post that starts with three asterisks. I've narrowed down, explained, and qualified where the basis of human morality comes from. It has a basis in self survival, survival of the pack through good health, happiness/contentment, and the advance of your people/tribe. All societies and all moral codes stem from these ideas.
|
|
|
Post by Sonnington on Jun 17, 2016 5:52:45 GMT
Of course. Do you think these societies carry out the barbaric traditions they do because they are purely sadistic? Or by stroke of luck or fate the backward Middle Eastern countries simply have extremely high populations of psychopaths and sadists? Perhaps they've been misled or bullied into their beliefs by psychopaths with aims at power. Or perhaps old barbaric traditions were necessary for humanity 2000 years ago, like not eating pig, the dirty animal.
They're clearly wrong, but you can't explain their cultural practices by a bizarre widespread acceptance in simple sadism. For instance, do you believe there are hundreds of millions of sadists in the Middle East?
|
|
|
Post by Sonnington on Jun 17, 2016 4:10:19 GMT
***
It's more of a leading question. Which is equally unfun, but not at all disingenuous like a loaded question.
I find it rather simple to break it down, all societies base their morals off of an overall desire for good health, happiness, and advancement for the largest number of their own people. Therefore we can ascertain these fundamentals are inherent to the definition of morality.
While you can dig up the OED definition and tell me, "See, it doesn't say that." It doesn't have to. It's an implicit connotation to the word. Much like our understanding of the word "racism" inherently implies prejudice or injustice. The dictionary definition lacks those qualifying words, but if I were to tell you scientific studies have overwhelmingly proven black skin burns less and has less of a chance of developing skin cancer to fair skinned people and is therefore better than white skin at resisting the sun. The vast majority of people would find it odd to call that a racist statement due to the fact it lacks prejudice or bias, but the dictionary definition of the word is crystal clear. That statement, according to the dictionary, is 100% racist.
Which leads me back to my initial statement on the topic. If you apply the dictionary definition as strictly as possible morals are subjective. In a practical sense and in the way we use and understand the word they very much so are objective. The same way color is objective even if you're color blind and can't see it. Light is still reflected off a surface in a particular spectrum even if you can't see it. There's always an objective moral answer to questions of what gives the greatest health, happiness, and advancement to a particular action even if we don't know what answer is the best.
|
|
|
Post by Sonnington on Jun 17, 2016 2:51:43 GMT
OK, so we agree that morals aren't arbitrary. You say you've developed your sense of morality from society and the rules we chose to live by. Why did we chose to live by those rules? They weren't arbitrary were they?
|
|
|
Post by Sonnington on Jun 17, 2016 2:05:19 GMT
Let me make sure I understand what you're saying. Essentially you're saying morals are arbitrary. There's no logic or reasoning behind why one person's set of morals is better than another's. So when you judge the Orlando shooter's actions and moral compass you're doing it strictly on emotion without any logic or rational.
|
|
|
Post by Sonnington on Jun 17, 2016 1:35:29 GMT
That's interesting. Let me ask you a silly question, since morality is subjective, what makes his values are less valid than your own? Would you say his values are incorrect? If so, what makes his values wrong and your values right? Is it arbitrary?
|
|
|
Post by Sonnington on Jun 17, 2016 0:13:59 GMT
This is part 1, it's even funnier than part 2.
|
|
|
Post by Sonnington on Jun 17, 2016 0:08:27 GMT
What Martiniii is saying is, if you believe morality is subjective, then you can't condemn the Orlando shooter. If you think it's wrong, but someone else thinks it's right, then you have no better reason than they do to believe the way you do. Because morality, to you, is entirely in the eye of the beholder.
It's the consistent logical conclusion to moral relativism. I think a great practical modern day example of taking moral subjectivity too far are the HAE people who say being fat is healthy and preferable... but anyway...
Edge didn't know if the monsters were good or evil due to what Crayman told him. Was it certainly evil? Well, let me compare it to this. If you listened to Obama's speech in Hiroshima without knowing anything about WW@, you'd think that the USA was evil for nuking Japan, but when you put in into context that nuking Japan was the only way to end the war and save millions of lives it becomes a lot less evil. It basically becomes the trolley thought experiment. Which is interesting. If you're forced into committing one of two choices and both choices would be evil alone, but clearly one is less evil than the other. Does that turn the less evil choice into a righteous and moral decision? In the end though, Edge was told the monsters were necessary for humans to survive. He didn't know if destroying the monsters would destroy humanity as well. He was conflicted and wasn't sure what the outcome would be to his choices.
|
|
|
Post by Sonnington on Jun 16, 2016 1:05:16 GMT
NSFW? I mean, it's nothing worse than network television. The narrator is absolutely hilarious, "Oh, it's just Breakout, WITH PANTSUS!"
|
|
|
Post by Sonnington on Jun 15, 2016 13:41:57 GMT
So what should be done about this? Do we have a moral obligation to change their diet by force? Furthermore, why does intelligence play a factor in morality? Lets say you take a pure psychopath with severe retardation who feels no remorse and sees nothing wrong with murder. If he murders someone is that not evil? By your own logic the psychopath murdered on pure instinct, he can't think for himself, or make environmental decisions. As a side note, humans are natural meat eaters. We are omnivores and natural predators. This is obvious from our sharp teeth and eyes seated in the front of our skulls in order to stalk prey. we are not natural meat eaters at all. we never ate meat until a short time ago in the human history (50.000-100.000) years. serial killers happen to be the mere opposite of retarded. that's why people are psychopaths, good luck finding a seriously retarded psychopath. So the longer you perform an immoral action for the more moral it becomes? If the first human ate meat 50k years ago does that make eating meat now less moral than if he first ate meat 100k years ago? Does that make it less natural? If we ate meat 1 million years ago, would that make it natural? Does the length of time an action is committed make something more natural and more moral? If you kick your dog once is that less moral than if you kicked your dog for years? I contend it doesn't. First off, I didn't say serial killers. Secondly, it's a hypothetical question, the reality that they do exist is irrelevant, if you have a mentally deficient person who doesn't know what they're doing and doesn't feel remorse or pity. If they murder someone does that mean it's not immoral? It fits the same description as why you think Lions aren't immoral for eating meat. Lastly, before the state run mental health facilities were shut down in the USA, my grandparents used to work at the one in the town I grew up in. Ever hear the term 'retard strong'(maybe it's not a European term)? It means extremely, freakishly strong. Some of the people there would turn violent in the blink of an eye and it would take 3 muscular guys to subdue one little guy because they were filled with adrenaline. If they didn't have that type of security the patients would snap your neck with no remorse, no reason, and without understanding. So, yes, mentally deficient psychopaths exist. The interesting question is, when they murder is it not wrong? When the defense lawyer pleads insanity, is that a valid defense? To tie this back to PDS, we're discussing the validity and practicality of moral relativism. I find it perfectly acceptable to discuss this without using events present in the game itself. If the game sparks interesting and deep discussions I feel like they should be explored regardless of the ostensibly tenuous link to the game they have.
|
|
|
Post by Sonnington on Jun 15, 2016 0:31:07 GMT
they are not immoral as they act upon their instinct as natural meat eaters, unlike us. they can't think for themselves and make environmental decisions like us either So what should be done about this? Do we have a moral obligation to change their diet by force? Furthermore, why does intelligence play a factor in morality? Lets say you take a pure psychopath with severe retardation who feels no remorse and sees nothing wrong with murder. If he murders someone is that not evil? By your own logic the psychopath murdered on pure instinct, he can't think for himself, or make environmental decisions. As a side note, humans are natural meat eaters. We are omnivores and natural predators. This is obvious from our sharp teeth and eyes seated in the front of our skulls in order to stalk prey.
|
|
|
Post by Sonnington on Jun 14, 2016 14:59:55 GMT
Yes in all three categories. Let me ask you, if eating meat is immoral do you think lions, tigers, and sharks are immoral beings? What do you think should be done with these immoral murder machines? again, this is your opinion so how can you state morality like a fact? I've already answered and explained this in full in my post to thewhitefalcon. I've answered all of your questions, would you kindly answer mine?
|
|