Options

Moral Relativism

1246712

Posts

  • Options
    bezerk bobbezerk bob Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Pony wrote: »
    Edward you are continuing to not answer my question directly.

    I am beginning to suspect you are either unable to or are willfully choosing not to, which is unfortunate in either case.

    Maybe hes running a lesser of two evils thing. Killing the crazy is bad thing, ideally you would lock him um for his and our protection, but letting him gun down civilans is worse and you probably cant lock him up so you got to kill him.

    bezerk bob on
    You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are. -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
  • Options
    JebusUDJebusUD Adventure! Candy IslandRegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    bezerk bob wrote: »
    I dont see how a perfect or optimum set of morals standards cant exist independet of a god/supernatural being.

    Even then it still doesn't work, actually. I'm not aware of a situation where morals can be objective, because what makes the deity right?

    --

    Jebus: You must live an incredibly sheltered life.

    I saw that ninja edit.

    Yes, everyone does. Some people might be bad at it. But there is no one that does somthing because they are seeking unhappiness. Everyone wants to be happy and will seek happiness.

    edit: even those people are seeking happiness.

    JebusUD on
    and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
    but they're listening to every word I say
  • Options
    ArgusArgus Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    JebusUD wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    JebusUD wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Varies between people.

    What is the ultimate thing they seek?

    No it does not. The thing that people seek for its own sake and not for the sake of anything else is happiness.

    You posit, then, that the ultimate goal of life is happiness. I posit that the ultimate goal of life is more advanced life, better adapted to fit its environment. We disagree. See how people been talking about how people disagree about what is optimum?

    Argus on
    pasigsizedu5.jpg
  • Options
    IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    JebusUD wrote: »
    I saw that ninja edit.

    Yes, everyone does. Some people might be bad at it. But there is no one that does somthing because they are seeking unhappiness. Everyone wants to be happy and will seek happiness.

    Yeah. No.

    We are not all little hedonism bots.

    Incenjucar on
  • Options
    theclamtheclam Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    bezerk bob wrote: »
    I dont see how a perfect or optimum set of morals standards cant exist independet of a god/supernatural being.

    Even then it still doesn't work, actually. I'm not aware of a situation where morals can be objective, because what makes the deity right?

    Exactly, God is supreme and everything he commands is moral only because he commanded it. Or, the morals are supreme and God just follows them.

    In either case, there are some serious problems.

    theclam on
    rez_guy.png
  • Options
    ZekZek Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    bezerk bob wrote: »
    Argus wrote: »
    bezerk bob wrote: »
    So some christians are "scared" of athiets, because it is assumed that they are nihilists?

    In fact, this is one of the main arguments for the existence of God; those who take the affirmative position of God existing often posit that:

    P1 Morality is Objective
    P2 Morality would be subjective, or relative, if God did not exist
    C3 Since morality isn't subjective, God exists

    Of course, the entire argument then turns into an argument about premise 1, and the debaters often run out of time, :|.

    I dont see how a perfect or optimum set of morals standards cant exist independet of a god/supernatural being.

    It can't exist objectively unless you define it within the context of a given goal. Are you trying to maximize the amount of happiness across the population? Or preserve the most life possible? Or minimize crime?

    Zek on
  • Options
    PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    bezerk bob wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »
    Edward you are continuing to not answer my question directly.

    I am beginning to suspect you are either unable to or are willfully choosing not to, which is unfortunate in either case.

    Maybe hes running a lesser of two evils thing. Killing the crazy is bad thing, ideally you would lock him um for his and our protection, but letting him gun down civilans is worse and you probably cant lock him up so you got to kill him.

    And that's fine. However, the question I am posing is if the "lesser evil" is made so significantly "lesser" by the circumstance, how exactly does it remain explicitly immoral?

    If an "immoral" act, committed publicly but justified sufficiently, is met without negative reprecussions and has no real adverse ramifications for the person who committed it, in what way is it still considered immoral?

    Is it still immoral at all?

    And if so, of what value is the concept of the act being "immoral" if an immoral act sufficently justified has no consequences or ramifications for the one who did it?

    Pony on
  • Options
    JebusUDJebusUD Adventure! Candy IslandRegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    JebusUD wrote: »
    I saw that ninja edit.

    Yes, everyone does. Some people might be bad at it. But there is no one that does somthing because they are seeking unhappiness. Everyone wants to be happy and will seek happiness.

    Yeah. No.

    We are not all little hedonism bots.

    Are you saying that there are people out that that do not seek to be happy?

    JebusUD on
    and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
    but they're listening to every word I say
  • Options
    ArgusArgus Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Zek wrote: »
    bezerk bob wrote: »
    Argus wrote: »
    bezerk bob wrote: »
    So some christians are "scared" of athiets, because it is assumed that they are nihilists?

    In fact, this is one of the main arguments for the existence of God; those who take the affirmative position of God existing often posit that:

    P1 Morality is Objective
    P2 Morality would be subjective, or relative, if God did not exist
    C3 Since morality isn't subjective, God exists

    Of course, the entire argument then turns into an argument about premise 1, and the debaters often run out of time, :|.

    I dont see how a perfect or optimum set of morals standards cant exist independet of a god/supernatural being.

    It can't exist objectively unless you define it within the context of a given goal. Are you trying to maximize the amount of happiness across the population? Or preserve the most life possible? Or minimize crime?

    Zek, go through the JebusUD stuff if you want to talk about moral objectivity without God. It's exactly what is being talked about.

    Argus on
    pasigsizedu5.jpg
  • Options
    bezerk bobbezerk bob Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    bezerk bob wrote: »
    I dont see how a perfect or optimum set of morals standards cant exist independet of a god/supernatural being.

    Even then it still doesn't work, actually. I'm not aware of a situation where morals can be objective, because what makes the deity right?

    An interesting question, is god* "right" just because he says he is and he is in a positon to punish you? Could the hypothetical perfect/optimum moral system run counter to what he says?

    *assuming christian god, and that he exists.

    bezerk bob on
    You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are. -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
  • Options
    DasUberEdwardDasUberEdward Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Yes I realize that this now means that we need a threshold for what actually constitutes infringement but depriving someone of life clearly falls in that realm.

    Not as clearly as you would think.

    See: Euthenasia.

    I already noted euthanasia earlier in the thread. Which point in particular did I fail to address?

    DasUberEdward on
    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    JebusUDJebusUD Adventure! Candy IslandRegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Argus wrote: »
    JebusUD wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    JebusUD wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Varies between people.

    What is the ultimate thing they seek?

    No it does not. The thing that people seek for its own sake and not for the sake of anything else is happiness.

    You posit, then, that the ultimate goal of life is happiness. I posit that the ultimate goal of life is more advanced life, better adapted to fit its environment. We disagree. See how people been talking about how people disagree about what is optimum?

    Actually we agree. But we are getting there. Have to build up to it.

    JebusUD on
    and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
    but they're listening to every word I say
  • Options
    IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    JebusUD wrote: »
    Are you saying that there are people out that that do not seek to be happy?

    They have other priorities. Like children or community or following their beliefs regardless of whether or not it will make them happier at the end of the day.

    Incenjucar on
  • Options
    IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited November 2008

    I already noted euthanasia earlier in the thread. Which point in particular did I fail to address?

    I didn't catch your stance on it.

    Incenjucar on
  • Options
    JebusUDJebusUD Adventure! Candy IslandRegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    JebusUD wrote: »
    Are you saying that there are people out that that do not seek to be happy?

    They have other priorities. Like children or community or following their beliefs regardless of whether or not it will make them happier at the end of the day.

    I seriously doubt that. People have children because it makes them happy or they at least think it will make them happy. Say, I like to collect rocks. Why? Because it makes me happy.

    If we follow the line of any particular thing back to the ultimate goal of that thing, that ultimate is always happiness.

    JebusUD on
    and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
    but they're listening to every word I say
  • Options
    ZekZek Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Jebus, what you're talking about is basically utilitarianism with the goal of maximizing happiness, but who defines that as the goal? Even if we assume that humans do want to be happy, why should humans get what they want? The point is that none of this is written down anywhere, it's completely subject to our own whims, and even relative to our own species it's impossible for us to absolutely agree on any final goal. Even if every human on the planet does want to be happy, that's only a moral code relating to humans, what do you do about animal rights?

    Zek on
  • Options
    DasUberEdwardDasUberEdward Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Incenjucar wrote: »

    I already noted euthanasia earlier in the thread. Which point in particular did I fail to address?

    I didn't catch your stance on it.

    I didn't take one. It's clearly a bit different because we're dealing with individuals who wish to relinquish their right to life. Not really the same as dealing with the unwilling forfeit of life.

    DasUberEdward on
    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    JebusUD wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    JebusUD wrote: »
    Are you saying that there are people out that that do not seek to be happy?

    They have other priorities. Like children or community or following their beliefs regardless of whether or not it will make them happier at the end of the day.

    I seriously doubt that. People have children because it makes them happy or they at least think it will make them happy. Say, I like to collect rocks. Why? Because it makes me happy.

    If we follow the line of any particular thing back to the ultimate goal of that thing, that ultimate is always happiness.

    No, not really.

    It tends to be about maximizing percieved happiness while minimizing guilt, fear, and other things, which is an entirely different situation.

    And then there are people with severe problems.

    --

    Edward: So you're applying an exception to immorality based on willingness? How about implied willingness due to offensive behavior?

    Incenjucar on
  • Options
    DasUberEdwardDasUberEdward Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    I think it was Pony who said I missed a point, not Fireguy?

    DasUberEdward on
    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    theclamtheclam Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    JebusUD wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    JebusUD wrote: »
    Are you saying that there are people out that that do not seek to be happy?

    They have other priorities. Like children or community or following their beliefs regardless of whether or not it will make them happier at the end of the day.

    I seriously doubt that. People have children because it makes them happy or they at least think it will make them happy. Say, I like to collect rocks. Why? Because it makes me happy.

    If we follow the line of any particular thing back to the ultimate goal of that thing, that ultimate is always happiness.

    Again, like I posted earlier, it doesn't follow that the ultimate goal of individual humans is the same thing as goal of any moral system. Just because we want it doesn't make it right.

    theclam on
    rez_guy.png
  • Options
    bezerk bobbezerk bob Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Pony wrote: »
    bezerk bob wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »
    Edward you are continuing to not answer my question directly.

    I am beginning to suspect you are either unable to or are willfully choosing not to, which is unfortunate in either case.

    Maybe hes running a lesser of two evils thing. Killing the crazy is bad thing, ideally you would lock him um for his and our protection, but letting him gun down civilans is worse and you probably cant lock him up so you got to kill him.

    And that's fine. However, the question I am posing is if the "lesser evil" is made so significantly "lesser" by the circumstance, how exactly does it remain explicitly immoral?

    If an "immoral" act, committed publicly but justified sufficiently, is met without negative reprecussions and has no real adverse ramifications for the person who committed it, in what way is it still considered immoral?

    Is it still immoral at all?

    And if so, of what value is the concept of the act being "immoral" if an immoral act sufficently justified has no consequences or ramifications for the one who did it?

    I would say that the act is always just a little immoral, but so little as to be completley justifiable. It is still considered immoral but only technically, the cop should probably still feel bad for killing a dude, but not very. The value of Immoral i think is that you would consider carefully before commiting an immoral act to stop a greater one. Bad things happen, people have limited power, judgment and information so getting the perfect or optimum outcome in any situation would be to my mind highly unlikley.

    bezerk bob on
    You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are. -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
  • Options
    ArgusArgus Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    JebusUD wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    JebusUD wrote: »
    Are you saying that there are people out that that do not seek to be happy?

    They have other priorities. Like children or community or following their beliefs regardless of whether or not it will make them happier at the end of the day.

    I seriously doubt that. People have children because it makes them happy or they at least think it will make them happy. Say, I like to collect rocks. Why? Because it makes me happy.

    If we follow the line of any particular thing back to the ultimate goal of that thing, that ultimate is always happiness.

    Do you deny evolution? People have children because people who don't have children tend to be taken out of the gene pool as their genes aren't passed on to future generations. As such, the people around today are all very likely to be part of the genetic group that is promoted. You don't have to be happy to pass on your genes, only survive and be fit to care for your offspring.

    Argus on
    pasigsizedu5.jpg
  • Options
    JebusUDJebusUD Adventure! Candy IslandRegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    JebusUD wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    JebusUD wrote: »
    Are you saying that there are people out that that do not seek to be happy?

    They have other priorities. Like children or community or following their beliefs regardless of whether or not it will make them happier at the end of the day.

    I seriously doubt that. People have children because it makes them happy or they at least think it will make them happy. Say, I like to collect rocks. Why? Because it makes me happy.

    If we follow the line of any particular thing back to the ultimate goal of that thing, that ultimate is always happiness.

    No, not really.

    It tends to be about maximizing percieved happiness while minimizing guilt, fear, and other things, which is an entirely different situation.

    And then there are people with severe problems.

    --

    Edward: So you're applying an exception to immorality based on willingness? How about implied willingness due to offensive behavior?

    I gotta go to work soon or I would go into this more.

    Do you have any spare time? You should go to the library and pick up a copy of Aristotle - Nichomachean Ethics.

    JebusUD on
    and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
    but they're listening to every word I say
  • Options
    IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    While I'm at it I will read up on Platonic Ideals right.

    Incenjucar on
  • Options
    DibsDibs Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    I apologize for being a late entry, but I find this thread very interesting. I have trouble with some of the jargon you're throwing around (I'm still not sure I understand what 'Moral Relativism' is), but feel I can still offer up my two cents.

    You cannot simply declare some acts amoral and other acts immoral. There will always be some acts found within the grey area between being 'moral neutral' and immoral. I don't really see how kissing is an amoral act. On the other hand, I can easily see why murder is immoral. It is easy for me to make that distinction for one simple reason. You've taken a word that describes an immoral act and stated the obvious. That's why there's been so many semantic arguments about murder.

    I liken it to going ahead and saying "Some acts are amoral - immoral acts, on the other hand, are immoral". The way you've defended your use of the word murder, it is a description of the act of killing.

    (Did that make sense? I'm not sure how good I am at getting these points across, let me know how/what should be clarified)

    Personally, I can understand a theory in which all acts are amoral by nature, and only moral or immoral based on the context. Is that was moral relativism is?

    Dibs on
  • Options
    JebusUDJebusUD Adventure! Candy IslandRegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    While I'm at it I will read up on Platonic Ideals right.

    Wut?

    You tryin to be a dick? I'm really not sure.

    Really, anyone who wants to talk about ethics should read Nichomachean Ethics.

    JebusUD on
    and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
    but they're listening to every word I say
  • Options
    theclamtheclam Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Dibs wrote: »
    Personally, I can understand a theory in which all acts are amoral by nature, and only moral or immoral based on the context. Is that was moral relativism is?

    That's a characteristic of several philosophies, including moral relativism.

    Moral relativism is that there are no objective moral truths. People only have subjective truths based on their religion, culture, or whatever. There's an article about it on wikipedia. For comparison, you can also read up on Deontology and Utilitarianism (or Consequentialism), they are both helpful in understanding this discussion.

    theclam on
    rez_guy.png
  • Options
    DasUberEdwardDasUberEdward Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    JebusUD wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    JebusUD wrote: »
    Are you saying that there are people out that that do not seek to be happy?

    They have other priorities. Like children or community or following their beliefs regardless of whether or not it will make them happier at the end of the day.

    I seriously doubt that. People have children because it makes them happy or they at least think it will make them happy. Say, I like to collect rocks. Why? Because it makes me happy.

    If we follow the line of any particular thing back to the ultimate goal of that thing, that ultimate is always happiness.

    No, not really.

    It tends to be about maximizing percieved happiness while minimizing guilt, fear, and other things, which is an entirely different situation.

    And then there are people with severe problems.

    --

    Edward: So you're applying an exception to immorality based on willingness? How about implied willingness due to offensive behavior?

    Not quite worded that way but if person A has a bag of candy and expresses that they do not want anyone to take any while person B has a similar bag and proclaims that anyone who wants candy make take some of theirs. A person who takes from both of them obviously stole from one but not the other because of what was directly stated.

    Implied willingness is a bit tricky. When exactly does one imply willingness? I would think that outside of the cases of suicide and euthanasia no one is implying that they wish to be killed, even if they are committing wrongs.

    DasUberEdward on
    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Dibs: I tend to consider any actual physical action to be neutral, with intent and effect being the only parts worth judging. Intent covers things like malice and benevolence, which relate to whether or not someone WANTS to be harmful, and effect covers whether that person IS harmful.

    --

    Edward: When breaking the social contract, implied or otherwise. If you break the law, you're basically inviting cops to kick your ass.

    Incenjucar on
  • Options
    saggiosaggio Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Adrien wrote: »
    Adrien wrote: »
    Adrien wrote: »

    This does not apply to all actions, however. Murder, for example, is not in and of itself amoral. Even in a society that allows a man to murder his wife for being infertile, to use a hypothetical, that act can be objectively declared to be something we ought not to do.

    I think that the problem with this stems from your use of the passive voice. Try rewriting "that act can be objectively declared to be something we ought not to do" as active and I think you'll find yourself with a nice little contradiction.

    This does not apply to all actions, however. Murder, for example, is not in and of itself amoral. Even in a society that allows a man to murder his wife for being infertile, to use a hypothetical, that shit is wrong.
    Where's the contradiction? Are you questioning that we can objectively judge another culture?

    Not what I'm looking for. Do you know the difference between active and passive voice? I want you to write the sentence, "that act can be objectively declared to be something we ought not to do," but include as subject the noun which (or, presumably, who) is doing the declaring.

    "I declare that a man ought not to murder his wife, even if it is socially acceptable"
    So you're questioning that we can objectively judge another culture.

    That's not the same sentence.

    I'm not questioning anything. I'm stating that a priori "I" or "you" or "we" cannot declare something "objectively". I assume you agree with that, or you wouldn't keep dropping the word "objectively" from that sentence.

    A triangle has three sides.


    The definition of what moral relativism is provided in the OP from Wiki is more or less correct. It's simply a denial of the existence or knowability of an objective, categorical morality. Cultural relativism is the view that morals are the product of one's culture and are untranslatable between cultures. I think the OP is confusing the two.

    Now everyone in this thread needs to go and read MacIntyre's After Virtue.

    saggio on
    3DS: 0232-9436-6893
  • Options
    ArgusArgus Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Dibs: I tend to consider any actual physical action to be neutral, with intent and effect being the only parts worth judging. Intent covers things like malice and benevolence, which relate to whether or not someone WANTS to be harmful, and effect covers whether that person IS harmful.

    --

    Edward: When breaking the social contract, implied or otherwise. If you break the law, you're basically inviting cops to kick your ass.

    By intent and effect do you mean something like Mens rea and Actus reus?

    Argus on
    pasigsizedu5.jpg
  • Options
    IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Argus wrote: »
    By intent and effect do you mean something like Mens rea and Actus reus?

    Looks like it.

    Incenjucar on
  • Options
    DasUberEdwardDasUberEdward Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Dibs: I tend to consider any actual physical action to be neutral, with intent and effect being the only parts worth judging. Intent covers things like malice and benevolence, which relate to whether or not someone WANTS to be harmful, and effect covers whether that person IS harmful.

    --

    Edward: When breaking the social contract, implied or otherwise. If you break the law, you're basically inviting cops to kick your ass.

    I don't think I ever said that there were no ramifications for breeching a social contract. If I did that's super wrong and i'm sorry.

    DasUberEdward on
    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    I don't think I ever said that there were no ramifications for breeching a social contract. If I did that's super wrong and i'm sorry.

    Would you assume that kicking someone's ass was immoral?

    Incenjucar on
  • Options
    AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    saggio wrote: »
    Adrien wrote: »
    That's not the same sentence.

    I'm not questioning anything. I'm stating that a priori "I" or "you" or "we" cannot declare something "objectively". I assume you agree with that, or you wouldn't keep dropping the word "objectively" from that sentence.

    A triangle has three sides.

    Cute. But that's based on a shared definition of the word "triangle". If you deconstruct it, that statement is a tautology: "A three sided figure has three sides." Furthermore, even that shared definintion is fundamentally adhered to our shared conceptual continuity, and is therefore inherently subjective; objectivity has no meaning in this situation.

    Kinda like morality, really.

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • Options
    DasUberEdwardDasUberEdward Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    I don't think I ever said that there were no ramifications for breeching a social contract. If I did that's super wrong and i'm sorry.

    Would you assume that kicking someone's ass was immoral?

    I would say that it is inherently immoral to cause excessive physical/mental harm to another person. So yes that would make kicking someone's ass immoral.

    This does not mean that there are not circumstances that can justify the act. But the underlying point is that a person was harmed.

    DasUberEdward on
    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    I would say that it is inherently immoral to cause excessive physical/mental harm to another person. So yes that would make kicking someone's ass immoral.

    Right.

    So when a cop kicks someone's ass in order to subdue them so they can be tried by the courts for doing horrible things?

    Incenjucar on
  • Options
    bezerk bobbezerk bob Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    I would say that it is inherently immoral to cause excessive physical/mental harm to another person. So yes that would make kicking someone's ass immoral.

    Right.

    So when a cop kicks someone's ass in order to subdue them so they can be tried by the courts for doing horrible things?

    This happens because the world isnt a perfect place, sometimes good people are forced to do bad/immoral things.

    bezerk bob on
    You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are. -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
  • Options
    PodlyPodly you unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Adrien wrote: »
    saggio wrote: »
    Adrien wrote: »
    That's not the same sentence.

    I'm not questioning anything. I'm stating that a priori "I" or "you" or "we" cannot declare something "objectively". I assume you agree with that, or you wouldn't keep dropping the word "objectively" from that sentence.

    A triangle has three sides.

    Cute. But that's based on a shared definition of the word "triangle". If you deconstruct it, that statement is a tautology: "A three sided figure has three sides." Furthermore, even that shared definintion is fundamentally adhered to our shared conceptual continuity, and is therefore inherently subjective; objectivity has no meaning in this situation.

    Kinda like morality, really.
    First of all, that is not deconstructing something. Also, it IS true that there is a geometric shape of three sides whose interior angles equal 180. The fact that it exists means that it IS, and that it has a name for this attribute. Are you seriously saying that even existence is relative and that ostension can never name?

    Finally. The basic premises that logic operates on are tautological. Something so basic as "a triangle has three sides" is necessarily tautological.

    Podly on
    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    9pr1GIh.jpg?1
  • Options
    DasUberEdwardDasUberEdward Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    I would say that it is inherently immoral to cause excessive physical/mental harm to another person. So yes that would make kicking someone's ass immoral.

    Right.

    So when a cop kicks someone's ass in order to subdue them so they can be tried by the courts for doing horrible things?

    Ideally the person should be subdued without causing physical harm to any party. At least that is the result that should be aimed for because when harm comes into the equation a bad thing is happening to a fellow human and that is bad.

    Unless we're getting into punishment. Are we going there?

    DasUberEdward on
    steam_sig.png
Sign In or Register to comment.