|
Post by atolm on Jun 18, 2016 1:33:06 GMT
I'm sorry, that just doesn't work. You still have "best" attached to your second question which is truly subjective in nature, and as a consequence is still a subjective question regardless if there is one answer simply because you've thrown in an extra variable.
Even if I could tell you the answer say, 5 million people enjoy this song, and they also find it the best. That in no way qualifies that song for true "bestness". I could simply then say, but I hate that song.
If you had instead asked "what song in the world the largest etc.. etc..." then yes, you could get a truly objective answer because you aren't presenting the pretense of "best", which is a subjective judgement on your part you've already inserted into the question. Your results from that truly objective question would merely tell you the song that is being listened to the most,or POPULAR not that it's the best. and that answer will change
The only scientific factual objective observation you or anyone can make about any song regarding it's content is that it's a series of pressure waves transmitted through a fluid medium, picked up by the human ear and transferred to the brain. Once it gets to the brain that's the end of your objectivity. Majority rules cannot define "goodness,bestness" in the way you want regarding objective morality, because there will always be SUBJECTIVE differing opinion.
|
|
|
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 atolm on Jun 18, 2016 3:14:42 GMT
Ok, I'll bite. Yes at that moment in time Song A happens to be the "best" choice for the group. But so what? Are you implying that Song A was always the ultimate answer (even if they didn't know it) in this analogy? Who's to say the group won't grow tired of hearing it and then want to change over to Z? Maybe they'll be introduced to a song outside of that control group they've never heard before and like that better. If that's the case, then song A can never have been the answer. People chose song A because they made a subjective determination at that point in time. So again, all comes down to opinion.
How can you "objectively" say there's a best fit answer (even if we don't know it) for morality when at anytime it or the parameters might change due to subjectivity? For objective morality to even be a thing there must be a concrete and finite solution regardless of what people think. You made a blanket statement regarding the meaning of morality which I don't agree with. You said ALL societies take into account X amount of different things. No they don't. I already mentioned women, there's others with caste systems. I'm not going to nitpick the details of every region of the world. Your definition of morality is a SUBJECTIVE determination that you came up with based on your own unique experience.
|
|
|
Post by tempest on Jun 19, 2016 9:02:27 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.
|
|
|
Post by bultje112 on Jun 19, 2016 11:34:43 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 couldn't agree more
|
|
|
Post by atolm on Jun 19, 2016 14:50:30 GMT
Hence the game's moral ambiguity that Martiniii spoke of. You sure you got user names right there? The guy was arguing for objective morality. From his first post said following a "higher power" has it's flaws, but the only way to the right path. Then said morality was concrete like gravity. Then basically accused me and bultje of approving of the slaughter in Orlando because I merely suggested in the context of the game, the response to the destruction of their air base with the destruction of Zoah may have been morally justifiable to the Empire. He even went further to pigeonhole the authors of this awesome work of fiction by saying we missed their intent because of them being Japanese of the modern era. There's one simple problem objective moralists run into they can't get around. They have no proof that morality is anything but subjective. All forms of religion that answer to a higher power are forms of objective morality. If you're going to claim something exists, you need to provide proof. The simple fact I can't disprove you is NOT evidence for it's existence (like sonnington saying there's an answer even if we don't know it. I can't disprove that statement, doesn't mean it exists). Just like when someone says there is a god (whichever one they believe in), the fact no one can disprove that statement is not in itself evidence for it's existence. If you're going to claim something exists, the burden of proof lies on you, not me to disprove it. Any argument they make regarding what this supposedly objective morality should be is going to be rooted in opinion.
|
|
|
Post by tempest on Jun 20, 2016 0:47:05 GMT
Hence the game's moral ambiguity that Martiniii spoke of. You sure you got user names right there? The guy was arguing for objective morality. From his first post said following a "higher power" has it's flaws, but the only way to the right path. Then said morality was concrete like gravity. Then basically accused me and bultje of approving of the slaughter in Orlando because I merely suggested in the context of the game, the response to the destruction of their air base with the destruction of Zoah may have been morally justifiable to the Empire. He even went further to pigeonhole the authors of this awesome work of fiction by saying we missed their intent because of them being Japanese of the modern era. Sorry, there's so many different posts, I lost track of who said what. Thanks for clarifying this.
|
|
|
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 tempest on Jun 21, 2016 7:31:27 GMT
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. For me, your example doesn't illustrate your point clearly because it doesn't involve morality. Yes, the most logical answer to those who have grown up in a society who use doors and windows regularly is that the door is the easiest exit. I won't argue with that. However, that doesn't make it the objective, best, or only way to exit the room. Someone who hasn't grown up with doors and windows might consider the window the best exit even if you and I think that mad. 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. You're absolutely right on your first point. No one's morality is better than another's. However, as a society we do agree to a set of certain morals, like killing humans is bad, etc, in order to co-exist. This is how we avoid the breakdown of society you mentioned. But, because we have subjective morality, we end up with mass shootings, etc since it seems some people come to a point in their lives when they no longer believe in society's agreed upon values. Now, 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. There is no right or wrong because certainty is not a natural part of the world and universe we live in. Chaos is the natural state of the world and of who we are as human beings. Paradoxically, it's only human beings who try to impose order, certainty, and the notion of objective morality because we want to feel safe and certain in a world that is anything but. That doesn't make any person's morals or worldview any less relevant, however. I also think you are confusing 'objectivity' with 'optimal'. Yes, there is an optimal path to the bathroom, in your example. But is this objectively definite for every person who uses the bathroom? Someone might have a disability that makes a different path more optimal for them. Or they might come to the bathroom from another direction making the supposed objective path redundant. For each person, there is an optimal path in the context of who they are. But this doesn't make it objective reality, especially when something can happen to the person - again, they could injure themselves or come from another direction - that changes what the optimal path is. So, like you said, there are many unknowable factors that contribute to what is optimal, meaning that everything in life is subjective.
|
|
|
Post by atolm on Jun 21, 2016 14:24:38 GMT
You pretty much summed it up better than I could. Objective morality removes human emotion and experience from the equation, and it would definitely not be preferable. Your saying humans can't figure out for themselves what work best to organize themselves to live the way they want.
|
|
|
Post by Sonnington on Jun 21, 2016 21:05:52 GMT
As a writer I'm sure you understand the meaning of words and the way we interpret words is quite important. Which is why I started my post asking you to rebuke my definition and analysis of the origin of the way we see and use the term morality. Without using a common definition for the word 'morality' we can not honestly discuss it.
|
|
|
Post by atolm on Jun 21, 2016 21:15:05 GMT
As a writer I'm sure you understand the meaning of words and the way we interpret words is quite important. Which is why I started my post asking you to rebuke my definition and analysis of the origin of the way we see and use the term morality. Without using a common definition for the word 'morality' we can not honestly discuss it. You keep going in circles. Your definition is based on your opinion. No one can rebuke "the correct answer is out there". There is no way to, that doesn't make your argument correct. Not all societies agree to your definition of "general well being for all citizens". The generally accepted definition is a set of values held by a person or society, not all that extra stuff you tossed in there. You're asking him to rebuke something that is based on your own subjectivity. How do you not get this?
|
|
Le Roi
Saturn Gamer
Joined: April 2016
Posts: 231
Location:
|
Post by Le Roi on Nov 13, 2016 11:08:30 GMT
As per my other thread, I've just finished PDS and it lives up to the hype. The only problem is that it took me 3 months to complete, so I'm a bit hazy on some plot details. Im hoping someone can clear up the following: I remember Azel saying that dragons were created by humans (Ancients). However, at the end the five dragons are on the side of Sestren (monsters). Was each dragon created with a unique 'purpose', and those with Sestren were created to protect the Tower (and Edge's to destroy the Tower)? Is Sestren a dragon? Also I can't remember who created the Tower (and why) -- a pretty fundamental part of the story The surrealness of the ending makes it difficult to join the dots in my head, given I've had so much going on in my 'real' life. Any help is much appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by tempest on Nov 14, 2016 13:59:31 GMT
The Ancients created the towers to control the dead environment and make it habitable for humans.
The heresy dragon/program was created within Sestren, so rather than the five dragon forms being on Sestren's "side" per se, it merely used the data it had stored of these forms to run a program where these forms of Lagi attack Lagi and Edge.
Sestren is the data network used to run or link the towers. It is not a dragon as such.
I hope these answers help. Let me know if you want more info.
|
|
Le Roi
Saturn Gamer
Joined: April 2016
Posts: 231
Location:
|
Post by Le Roi on Nov 16, 2016 23:49:24 GMT
The Ancients created the towers to control the dead environment and make it habitable for humans. The heresy dragon/program was created within Sestren, so rather than the five dragon forms being on Sestren's "side" per se, it merely used the data it had stored of these forms to run a program where these forms of Lagi attack Lagi and Edge. Sestren is the data network used to run or link the towers. It is not a dragon as such. I hope these answers help. Let me know if you want more info. Definitely clearer, thanks. I just spent ten minutes typing a load more questions, but I think I just need to read a plot summary first. It made sense to me until disc three, but I went a few weeks without playing and was confused when I went back.
|
|