User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-06-26 at 3:09 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Just because a majority of people believe something is wrong doesn't mean it is objectively wrong. If there is a non-subjective element to morality would you please point to it?
The argument never was that the majority of people believing something is wrong makes it objectively wrong. What I was pointing out is that our moral intuitions about the moral status of an action are non-relative. Even if people don't always or even often agree on what is right or wrong, most people have the intuition that there's a fact of the matter whether some is right or not, which is why we use factual language around normative statements in language e.g. no one ever says "it's wrong to murder babies from my perspective", we say "it's wrong to murder babies" without qualification. Indeed, in most contexts this kind of unqualified ought statement is taken as the the fundamental character of a moral proposition. -
2018-06-26 at 3:28 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny The argument never was that the majority of people believing something is wrong makes it objectively wrong. What I was pointing out is that our moral intuitions about the moral status of an action are non-relative. Even if people don't always or even often agree on what is right or wrong, most people have the intuition that there's a fact of the matter whether some is right or not, which is why we use factual language around normative statements in language e.g. no one ever says "it's wrong to murder babies from my perspective", we say "it's wrong to murder babies" without qualification. Indeed, in most contexts this kind of unqualified ought statement is taken as the the fundamental character of a moral proposition.
Just because people word their statements in a certain way or feel that something is a matter of fact doesn't mean it is. "It's wrong to murder babies" is obviously relative. Example: abortion clinics. -
2018-06-26 at 4:39 PM UTC
Originally posted by ohfralala Thread should be moved to the mongolvoid based on repetitiveness and inability to come to a conclusion after 81 pages.
That's because morality is an individual choice so there can be no collective conclusion. Now if we were to argue ethics we could come up with a conclusion provided we we're all from the same culture. -
2018-06-26 at 4:40 PM UTCNo. Fuck off.
-
2018-06-26 at 5:15 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe I don't see how any of that supports what Lanny is saying about morality being objective.
I'm not arguing for Lanny. I'm arguing for my moral system, which is simply based on logical consistency. Self interest, whatever that may be, seems to be an objective feature of any organism capable of participating in a society. -
2018-06-26 at 5:49 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain I'm not arguing for Lanny. I'm arguing for my moral system, which is simply based on logical consistency. Self interest, whatever that may be, seems to be an objective feature of any organism capable of participating in a society.
Ok. I don't see how morality is objective. I don't see how "self interest" supports morality being objective. An individual may be objectively self interested - that doesn't mean what they consider to be "moral" is objectively moral. The fact that you refer to your system as "your" system and not "the" system seems to support my argument that morality is relative and not at all objective. -
2018-06-26 at 7:08 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny The argument never was that the majority of people believing something is wrong makes it objectively wrong.
theres no such thing as right or wrong, objectively or otherwise.
only the opinion of the majority of what is acceptable, which they refer to as ''right'' ... and those that the majority think, and perceive as unacceptable, which they brand as ''wrong''.
there are only true, or phalse.
no such thing as right or wrong, moral or immoral. those are tyranny of the majority. -
2018-06-26 at 7:39 PM UTC
Originally posted by infinityshock lasciviously lavages lannys lungs with love lube you do realize that the only function of this thread…as well as the reason he created it…is to admin-troll everyone, right…
i believe its mutual-trolling.
you have to maintain that delicate balance between full blown shit posting and serious posts so that theres no ground for her to ban you altho you arent posting on topic all the time.
its like rope walking. -
2018-06-26 at 8:11 PM UTCHow Can Meat Eating Be Real If Our Diets Aren't Real
-
2018-06-26 at 8:32 PM UTC
-
2018-06-26 at 8:44 PM UTC
-
2018-06-26 at 9:40 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Ok. I don't see how morality is objective. I don't see how "self interest" supports morality being objective. An individual may be objectively self interested - that doesn't mean what they consider to be "moral" is objectively moral. The fact that you refer to your system as "your" system and not "the" system seems to support my argument that morality is relative and not at all objective.
Are you retarded? There is nothing subjective about the material of this universe. Don't be ridiculous. This is all just matter interacting. Self interest is exactly as much an objective basis for the logical derivation of my moral system as it is for the establishment of evolution by natural selection. In fact it can be seen as an extrusion of evolution into a societal context, and a more purelogic formulation of the idea. My moral system does not rely on any particular subjective judgment from your conscious mind. Youcan have any "subjective" judgment of ethics you want, but it always balances out in a societal context until it reaches an equilibrium of people who want to live together and forfeit certain freedoms for their opposing rights.
Your decisions are simply your genes interacting with the environment. Those genes have evolved from basically nothing but self interest (which seems to be propagation, because there is no other way for something to come to be in any form close to living without being the result of many, many generations of successful propagation from simpler forms). -
2018-06-26 at 9:47 PM UTCUnless you're going to give me some bullshit about god and magic, all objective evidence suggests that our brain is the basis of the mind, and this has evolved from that same evolutionary system in order to create a society. Perhaps ultimately this new social world is just another set of Darwinian test runs for ethical systems that deserve to survive before we blast off into space and propagate our cancer to the stars.
-
2018-06-26 at 9:52 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Are you retarded? There is nothing subjective about the material of this universe. Don't be ridiculous. This is all just matter interacting. Self interest is exactly as much an objective basis for the logical derivation of my moral system as it is for the establishment of evolution by natural selection. In fact it can be seen as an extrusion of evolution into a societal context, and a more purelogic formulation of the idea. My moral system does not rely on any particular subjective judgment from your conscious mind. Youcan have any "subjective" judgment of ethics you want, but it always balances out in a societal context until it reaches an equilibrium of people who want to live together and forfeit certain freedoms for their opposing rights.
Your decisions are simply your genes interacting with the environment. Those genes have evolved from basically nothing but self interest (which seems to be propagation, because there is no other way for something to come to be in any form close to living without being the result of many, many generations of successful propagation from simpler forms).
Wtfamireading.jpg -
2018-06-26 at 10:48 PM UTC
-
2018-06-26 at 11:02 PM UTC
-
2018-06-27 at 1:42 AM UTC
-
2018-06-27 at 11:13 AM UTCSo anyways just because people some feel intuitively that "it's wrong to murder babies" doesn't mean murdering babies is objectively wrong. That's obviously relative. Look at abortion clinics. The people who protest outside might agree with you but the people who run the clinic obviously don't. Is one group wrong or is morality relative?
-
2018-06-27 at 1:25 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe So anyways just because people some feel intuitively that "it's wrong to murder babies" doesn't mean murdering babies is objectively wrong. That's obviously relative. Look at abortion clinics. The people who protest outside might agree with you but the people who run the clinic obviously don't. Is one group wrong or is morality relative?
You have to show me some inconsistencies in the actual moral system, because I can give you a perfectly consistent and probably 100% agreeable and logical account for why abortion is usually wrong, but not always. I've derived my system from pure logic. And it's the best theory and model of morality I've seen so far, but I don't want to sniff my farts too much. -
2018-06-27 at 2:07 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain You have to show me some inconsistencies in the actual moral system, because I can give you a perfectly consistent and probably 100% agreeable and logical account for why abortion is usually wrong, but not always. I've derived my system from pure logic. And it's the best theory and model of morality I've seen so far, but I don't want to sniff my farts too much.
That post was meant for Lanny. Lanny claimed morality is objective, and used baby murder as an example. I still don't know what you're talking about. Maybe you sniffed too many farts?
