Options

Moral Relativism

1235712

Posts

  • Options
    MorninglordMorninglord I'm tired of being Batman, so today I'll be Owl.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?

    Bad example Icen. That's actually happened.

    Morninglord on
    (PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
  • Options
    MorninglordMorninglord I'm tired of being Batman, so today I'll be Owl.Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Podly wrote: »
    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.

    This is 1. true.
    2. The cognition is the wrong point to focus on. Which is what you mean by it IS. Or at least that's all I can gather.

    edit: Ah I didn't see it was you podly I am somewhat sleep deprived.

    We've had this argument before so just ignore this post alright.

    Morninglord on
    (PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
  • Options
    PonyPony 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.

    I used to be into mixed martial arts.

    I, an informed and trained adult, would willfully choose to engage in a physically violent confrontation with another informed and trained adult.

    While we did have rules, and respectful conduct, we were nonetheless beating the living shit out of each other.

    To an extent that if I were to inflict the same amount of violence outside of that circumstance and context, it'd be outright aggravated assault.

    Is the act of participating in a mixed martial arts bout immoral?

    I mean, I am physically assaulting another human being, after all.

    Pony on
  • Options
    IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    The cop is ass-kicking because of need, not because they decided to go with the least effective method of subdual.

    Cops have to shoot/smack/zap people as a regular part of their jobs. Making them some of the most immoral people around, it seems.

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

    I used to be into mixed martial arts.

    I, an informed and trained adult, would willfully choose to engage in a physically violent confrontation with another informed and trained adult.

    While we did have rules, and respectful conduct, we were nonetheless beating the living shit out of each other.

    To an extent that if I were to inflict the same amount of violence outside of that circumstance and context, it'd be outright aggravated assault.

    Is the act of participating in a mixed martial arts bout immoral?

    I mean, I am physically assaulting another human being, after all.

    Hey me too.

    And no because it's like euthanasia, both parties have agreed to it.

    DasUberEdward on
    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    DasUberEdwardDasUberEdward Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    The cop is ass-kicking because of need, not because they decided to go with the least effective method of subdual.

    I realize that. But I was trying to make the point that a moral standard has to remain to prevent the adaptation of tactics that would lead to a lot more criminals being violently subdued than needed.

    DasUberEdward on
    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    And no because it's like euthanasia, both parties have definitively agreed to it.

    I assume you don't agree with the stance that breaking the law is agreeing to take the consequences?

    --

    Edward: "Needless" is the descriptor you use for that. Not "Any."

    Incenjucar on
  • Options
    AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Podly wrote: »
    Adrien wrote: »
    saggio wrote: »

    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.

    Well, a triangle isn't an object. Saying that qualities are things which exist is pretty thorny. The concept of a triangle isn't floating out there in the ether as a Platonic form, it's the subjective experience of a person in their literal brain.

    Likewise, logic is not real. The tautology only holds if you axiomatically assert it, it applies only within the bounds of that assertion, and is therefore not objective in any really meaningful sense.

    All of that deconstruction aside, though, I was joking when I said this was like morality. Morality is fundamentally composed of value judgments, whereas logic can usefully be said not to be. It's not really relevant.

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • Options
    DasUberEdwardDasUberEdward Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    And no because it's like euthanasia, both parties have definitively agreed to it.

    I assume you don't agree with the stance that breaking the law is agreeing to take the consequences?

    As difficult as it is to say it seems logical that criminals would not wish to be subjected to the consequences of their actions. If you were to ask someone who committed a crime if they should be punished chances are they will say no. But, I think we just came full circle. This would bring us to

    Is killing a criminal immoral.

    and i'd say yes it is because the act of killing is immoral.

    DasUberEdward on
    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Yeeeah.

    Most people have more nuance to their moral systems, and apply qualifiers.

    For instance you just ignored your own euthenasia stance.

    Incenjucar on
  • Options
    DasUberEdwardDasUberEdward Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    And no because it's like euthanasia, both parties have definitively agreed to it.

    I assume you don't agree with the stance that breaking the law is agreeing to take the consequences?

    --

    Edward: "Needless" is the descriptor you use for that. Not "Any."

    I think i'd want "either" and the bystandards.

    You are saying that the criminal would not be a needless party right?

    DasUberEdward on
    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    MikeMan wrote: »

    By me, yes. If someone can lay out an argument that convinces me that murder or rape can be moral acts, I'm ready to hear it.
    The burden of proof lies upon you. You are the one making the positive claim that A) there exists an objective morality, and B) you have happened upon it, or a facet of it.

    I'm arguing that there is an objective morality, and that I like to think that what I perceive to be morality is in fact correct, based on my studies. A facet of this is that I am willing to change what I hold to be moral in the event that someone can convince me, for example, that murder is not a net negative.

    So I maintain that A) an objective morality exists in that a relative morality seems lacking, and B) I am attempting to understand A) as best I can.

    edit: I can not believe the murder semantics are still going on.

    TL DR on
  • Options
    ZekZek Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Injencuar seems to be arguing that morality is a set of guidelines telling people what things you should generally avoid doing without just cause. That's fine and good but it isn't really relevant to the question here, which is how you define that system.

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

    Most people have more nuance to their moral systems, and apply qualifiers.

    For instance you just ignored your own euthenasia stance.

    Where did I ignore that?

    DasUberEdward on
    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    PodlyPodly you unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Adrien wrote: »
    triangle isn't an object.

    We are forming propositions about it. It is being discussed. It exists for us. It is an object.

    Likewise, logic is not real.

    It is real. Math is based upon it. Now it may only be true to itself, and it may be artificial, but that does not mean it isn't real.

    Podly on
    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    9pr1GIh.jpg?1
  • Options
    MorninglordMorninglord I'm tired of being Batman, so today I'll be Owl.Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    How do two opposing moral stances get resolved.

    Morninglord on
    (PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
  • Options
    IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Yeeeah.

    Most people have more nuance to their moral systems, and apply qualifiers.

    For instance you just ignored your own euthenasia stance.

    Where did I ignore that?

    You applied qualifiers when it was brought up, so your actual stance is more "Killing without the individual's permission is immoral."

    --

    Zek: I don't believe in morals, I'm mostly noting how people tend to approach them.

    Incenjucar on
  • Options
    TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered 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?

    Unless the harm that would have been caused by the cop not ass-kicking would justify its prevention. In the form of ass-kicking.

    TL DR on
  • Options
    AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Podly wrote: »
    Adrien wrote: »
    triangle isn't an object.

    We are forming propositions about it. It is being discussed. It exists for us. It is an object.

    Likewise, logic is not real.

    It is real. Math is based upon it. Now it may only be true to itself, and it may be artificial, but that does not mean it isn't real.

    For the sake of argument, I've been granting that things that exist physically are objectively real. Don't push me here.

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • Options
    PodlyPodly you unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    How do two opposing moral stances get resolved.

    OMG HEGELZ

    Podly on
    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    9pr1GIh.jpg?1
  • Options
    DasUberEdwardDasUberEdward Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Yeeeah.

    Most people have more nuance to their moral systems, and apply qualifiers.

    For instance you just ignored your own euthenasia stance.

    Where did I ignore that?

    You applied qualifiers when it was brought up, so your actual stance is more "Killing without the individual's permission is immoral."

    --

    Zek: I don't believe in morals, I'm mostly noting how people tend to approach them.

    This is in line with my original stance. If you recall I said that killing was immoral because it infringes on the right to life that individuals wish to have upheld. In the case of euthanasia the individual wishes to forfeit the right. Goes back to the stealing candy thing.

    DasUberEdward on
    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    So it's not that killing is wrong, it's that infringing is wrong. These are two very different arguments.

    Incenjucar on
  • Options
    TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    How do two opposing moral stances get resolved.

    Through argument. The champion of one stance offers premises in support of his stance in order to convince the audience that they share his views. An opponent of the argument may attack him on the grounds that either his premises are false, or that they do not in fact support his conclusion.

    It's evolution, baby.

    TL DR on
  • Options
    MorninglordMorninglord I'm tired of being Batman, so today I'll be Owl.Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Podly wrote: »
    How do two opposing moral stances get resolved.

    OMG HEGELZ

    Neat. Thanks.

    Morninglord on
    (PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
  • Options
    DasUberEdwardDasUberEdward Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    So it's not that killing is wrong, it's that infringing is wrong.

    Yes.

    DasUberEdward on
    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    So it's not that killing is wrong, it's that infringing is wrong.

    Yes.

    So you need to stop saying that killing is wrong because you don't actually believe that and it muddles things.

    Incenjucar on
  • Options
    MorninglordMorninglord I'm tired of being Batman, so today I'll be Owl.Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    How do two opposing moral stances get resolved.

    Through argument. The champion of one stance offers premises in support of his stance in order to convince the audience that they share his views. An opponent of the argument may attack him on the grounds that either his premises are false, or that they do not in fact support his conclusion.

    It's evolution, baby.

    That's not a valid method for acquiring what some people crave, vis a vis "Objective truth" or whatever.

    Audiences are far too easy to mislead.

    Morninglord on
    (PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
  • Options
    DasUberEdwardDasUberEdward Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    So it's not that killing is wrong, it's that infringing is wrong.

    Yes.

    So you need to stop saying that killing is wrong because you don't actually believe that and it muddles things.

    I think I explained what would make the act of killing wrong pages ago. When it's an infringement on life etc.

    DasUberEdward on
    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    I think I explained what would make the act of killing wrong pages ago. When it's an infringement on life etc.

    But you keep saying killing is wrong, but that is not your position. You have to use your actual position for anyone to be able to argue about it, not some vague sometimes-true consequence of it.

    Incenjucar on
  • Options
    TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    How do two opposing moral stances get resolved.

    Through argument. The champion of one stance offers premises in support of his stance in order to convince the audience that they share his views. An opponent of the argument may attack him on the grounds that either his premises are false, or that they do not in fact support his conclusion.

    It's evolution, baby.

    That's not a valid method for acquiring what some people crave, vis a vis "Objective truth" or whatever.

    Audiences are far too easy to mislead.

    Well by 'audience' I had in mind 'avid student of all things philosophy'. What you're describing is why democracy doesn't work, but as Plato said, if we were all ruled by philosopher kings...

    TL DR on
  • Options
    DasUberEdwardDasUberEdward Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    I think I explained what would make the act of killing wrong pages ago. When it's an infringement on life etc.

    But you keep saying killing is wrong, but that is not your position. You have to use your actual position for anyone to be able to argue about it, not some vague sometimes-true consequence of it.

    I didn't think that my response to the original question would need to be brought to this. I was operating on the notion of a common ground that did not exist.

    DasUberEdward on
    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    I didn't think that my response to the original question would need to be brought to this.

    Brought to... your actual moral beliefs...? o_O

    Incenjucar on
  • Options
    MorninglordMorninglord I'm tired of being Batman, so today I'll be Owl.Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    How do two opposing moral stances get resolved.

    Through argument. The champion of one stance offers premises in support of his stance in order to convince the audience that they share his views. An opponent of the argument may attack him on the grounds that either his premises are false, or that they do not in fact support his conclusion.

    It's evolution, baby.

    That's not a valid method for acquiring what some people crave, vis a vis "Objective truth" or whatever.

    Audiences are far too easy to mislead.

    Well by 'audience' I had in mind 'avid student of all things philosophy'. What you're describing is why democracy doesn't work, but as Plato said, if we were all ruled by philosopher kings...

    I make no distinction between knowledge, intelligence or ability here.

    All human beings are easy to mislead.

    Morninglord on
    (PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
  • Options
    DasUberEdwardDasUberEdward Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    I didn't think that my response to the original question would need to be brought to this.

    Brought to... your actual moral beliefs...? o_O

    I think this goes back to whatever was said in [chat]? I really don't know.

    DasUberEdward on
    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    I think this goes back to whatever was said in [chat]? I really don't know.

    Mnkay.

    Point is this: Your ACTUAL moral system is that infringing on the rights of others is immoral, with no exceptions, am I right?

    Though I'm not sure what you consider to be rights.

    Incenjucar on
  • Options
    DasUberEdwardDasUberEdward Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    I think this goes back to whatever was said in [chat]? I really don't know.

    Mnkay.

    Point is this: Your ACTUAL moral system is that infringing on the rights of others is immoral, with no exceptions, am I right?

    Though I'm not sure what you consider to be rights.

    Yeah the act is always immoral at base but it can be justified. You know the end justifies the means. . .have to infringe upon someones right to protect your family. Yes it is immoral but the end result is something that is justified and rational. Honestly I haven't slept in 30+ hours so I can't give you a concrete definition of what would qualify as rights but if you found a general definition i'd probably agree for the most part.

    DasUberEdward on
    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    The thing with rights is that they generally have to be listed and every one of them can be argued.

    See: Communists vs. Capitalists.

    Incenjucar on
  • Options
    DasUberEdwardDasUberEdward Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    The thing with rights is that they generally have to be listed and every one of them can be argued.

    See: Communists vs. Capitalists.

    Yeah no kidding. I've never taken the time to enumerate all of the rights that I feel should be guaranteed. America does a pretty decent job of setting up a system of rights and I don't think it would be a bad general guideline.

    DasUberEdward on
    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    The thing with rights is that they generally have to be listed and every one of them can be argued.

    See: Communists vs. Capitalists.

    Yeah no kidding. I've never taken the time to enumerate all of the rights that I feel should be guaranteed. America does a pretty decent job of setting up a system of rights and I don't think it would be a bad general guideline.

    How do you feel about positive vs. negative rights obligation? Do you have a duty to protect others' rights, or merely to not interfere with their rights?

    TL DR on
  • Options
    DasUberEdwardDasUberEdward Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    The thing with rights is that they generally have to be listed and every one of them can be argued.

    See: Communists vs. Capitalists.

    Yeah no kidding. I've never taken the time to enumerate all of the rights that I feel should be guaranteed. America does a pretty decent job of setting up a system of rights and I don't think it would be a bad general guideline.

    How do you feel about positive vs. negative rights obligation? Do you have a duty to protect others' rights, or merely to not interfere with their rights?

    I think there's a duty to protect the rights of others but it is limited. Not familiar enough to say anything definitive on the matter.

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