absolute vs. subjective morality

[X2]

So what you think about the general Lee

not above. I mentioned slavery. Doesn't mean I cannot call it out as wicked/savage, ent? General Lee was operating the era/values of his time, nd his Union enemies were no better.

TriniTuner is rather subjective...yet no one seems to find this banter absolutely amusing ? I might be overly objective... but the fact that it works on so many levels is sweet. But morality says... if zoom rader driving the wagon... don't ride.


Yeeeee-HAW !

[Slartibartfast]

Desifemlove I agree that all morality is subjective. However, as I mentioned in the other thread I believe the underlying principle "Do no harm" can guide any subjective derivative of morality in a given situation.

Note that the phrase may be expanded to mean
"Take the course of action that would result in the least net harm" and the person would need to take into account the relative importance of all persons involved from the perspective of the person making the decision

I believe that is the objective side to morality. If there is an objective side to morality it means that morality is not completely subjective but rather partially subjective all if the time.

Thoughts? Would love someone to prove this wrong as this is just my personal theory and not something written or proven in and books.

EDIT: added text in blue

[MD Marketers]

Technically speaking Desifemlove is the most correct in stating that Morality is purely subjective.

The reason why she is correct is because there is only 1 thing in this world we can prove truly exists and is therefore truly absolute.

This one thing makes Atheists look like hypocrites, Religious people smarter & Agnostics look like they are really the smartest.

The following is probably going to shock you & probably piss you off because no one can logically dispute it and it's the only real thing you will ever know. Everything else outside of this thing I'm about to show you is simply "Blind Faith".

Here is the answer.

The only thing you can know for certain is that your thoughts exist, because "you are aware, therefore your thoughts must exist". What you perceive yourself to be is another question.

Here is why the above answer is considered the Atheist Cryptonite:

I can't even prove that I nor anyone else exists other than as a mere thought.
If you were to take the atheist stance that only in light of provable evidence should we believe that something exists outside of a thought, then all Atheist should be Solipsistic.
In fact for an Atheist to believe anyone else is real (outside of a thought) is to exercise "Blind Faith".
This would make Atheists Hypocites
This is the reason why being Agnostic on the matter of how God exists (outside of a thought) makes the most sense from a logical perspective.
Therefore it can be absolutely proven that everything exists in the form of a thought, even though I cannot prove that they exist other than as a thought

Thoughts are real. Absolute fact.
What else outside of this can be absolutely proven regardless of perspective and thus claim the title of an absolute fact?

[Slartibartfast]

That's all just philosophical masturbation. A wonderful exercise in thought with no practical application. Yes we cant state with certainty that anything exists, although we can't state with certainty anything doesn't exist. So far this proves my statement "can be wrong" which I already knew.

I want you to show that "it is wrong". Show me one scenario where what I have stated is wrong. Or develop your argument further to directly disprove what I have stated.

[MD Marketers]

That's all just philosophical masturbation. A wonderful exercise in thought with practical application. Yes we cant state with certainty that anything exists, although we can't state with certainty anything doesn't exist. So far this proves my statement "can be wrong" which I already knew.

I want you to show that "it is wrong". Show me one scenario where what I have stated is wrong. Or develop your argument further to directly disprove what I have stated.

This philosophical masturbation is how we communicate.
This wonderful exercise in thought with practical application, is what we are all doing each time we try to argue a point on this thread.

I think now that we both agree that anything outside of a thought cannot be absolute it is now safe to say I cannot prove anything "IS" wrong.
"IS" means absolute in its purest form.

I really don't mean to be difficult. Honestly speaking I only started considering the applications of the word absolute & the purpose of these discussions over the last week.
It would seem that no matter what transpires in this life or even an afterlife we may never know the absolute truth despite our greatest efforts to find it.
Absolute truth will always evade us because of the unknown.
We may just keep evolving into a higher state of truthness just like Bluesclues claims he does, but never actually get there.

My only solace is now this:
I must treat life & logic like a game.
We know nothing is absolutely real but we can still make the rules by which we play by.
We make the language by which we speak & the logic by which we live by.
Some of us don't like the rules of logic & language by which we live by so we attempt to change the rules and make a new game. Eg. Tuner posters.

When it's all summed up in the end it would seem that life is just a game we play to keep ourselves from getting bored until it's all over & if we don't like the rules we simply stop playing or try a different game.

Don't worry I will answer your question shortly as I still find meaning in this game we are playing even though it isn't absolute or real. We shall make it real.

I need a moment of silence to shed a tear as my own words bring sadness to my worldview that I may never know the truth & can only fool myself into believing otherwise.

[MD Marketers]

Considering my last message and it's impact on my world view I am now wondering:

If atheism and theism are simply a game to keep us from getting bored, then why not play the game that we like more, not because we know it's real but because it's more entertaining to us?

Is it ok if I change games regularly depending on the mood I'm in?
Today I'm gonna play Anglican.
Friday Sunni Muslim
Saturday Seventh Day Adventist
Sunday Roman Catholic
Monday feels like an Atheist day
Tuesday & Wednesday I will be Hindu so I can pretend I reincarnated

Any Atheist want to play? We will call it a Decathagion

[Slartibartfast]

MD you seem to be going off the deep end. I'm worried for your mind. You seem to be living in Schodinger's universe where everything is possibly simultaneously correct and wrong because the universe is a logical box that cannot be peered into. You can only see the box from the outside to know it exists with the old philosophical axiom "I think therefore I am".

Anyway, my argument takes place from inside the boxnof existence so I am unable to continue arguing with you unless you assume existence exists the way it is perceived to exists. Hopefully by then you should be able to directly respond to my statement that has been following you for multiple pages on two threads over several days.

It's ok if you cannot directly prove it wrong. I will wait on desifemlove to come along and prove that.

[MD Marketers]

My perception of existence is just the one truth that thoughts exist.
Don't worry my moment of sadness is over

[88sins]

this entire ched is absolutely subjective

[Advent]

Technically speaking Desifemlove is the most correct in stating that Morality is purely subjective.

The reason why she is correct is because there is only 1 thing in this world we can prove truly exists and is therefore truly absolute.

This one thing makes Atheists look like hypocrites, Religious people smarter & Agnostics look like they are really the smartest.

The following is probably going to shock you & probably piss you off because no one can logically dispute it and it's the only real thing you will ever know. Everything else outside of this thing I'm about to show you is simply "Blind Faith".

The only thing you can know for certain is that your thoughts exist, because "you are aware, therefore your thoughts must exist"

REALLY ??? Solipsism? you are arguing solipsism
Conversation done dey yes...clearly you have very little idea of what you speak.

take me for example (since I'm certain that I'm here and you might be figments of my imagination).

If I am the only thing that exists, and the Universe is My Oyster served on a figmental half-shell, then why cannot I be surrounded by beautiful houris who do nothing but peel me half-naked grapes (or peel me grapes, half-naked, better yet) at a whim? Why do I have to plod along typing this instead of just wishing the lines onto the page? You see, Solipsism alone isn't a sufficient axiom. I need more. I need axioms to explain why I sometimes hurt, why my eyes are gradually failing as I age, why I age, why bad things happen to me. Sometimes very bad indeed.

I also need axioms to explain why my perceptions of what is nearby are so limited, but my perceptions of what is going on thousands of miles away through the glass teat of a television tube are crystal clear, complex, different, and correspond perfectly to what I see when I visit Paris, the Parthenon, India. Why and how I manage to be some sort of split personality.

If all of this is a figment of ``my'' imagination, then I've successfully managed to split myself into at least two incredibly separate beings - the artist that is constantly making up the story that I find myself embedded in, and the audience (the ``me'' that is typing this on what appears to be a laptop computer obviously created by my artistic half). The watcher within that watches the watcher watching, so to speak. Since I never perceive the artist directly, how do I know that it is ``me''?

[Advent]

In case people dont want to read, watch this video of "md marketers" solipsistic position is complete BULLSH..T.............

[Altec55]

the definition of good/bad you posted uses moral in it. however you want to define moral using good/bad. so right now you spinning top in mud. you like to offroad or what? lol

in any event, check out the following 2 scenarios.

1. subjective
if morality is subjective, then so is good and bad. why? because one day you can say something is good and next day, you can say it's bad. why? because you feel like it. therefore moral, good and bad really has no meaning because it always changes.

2. absolute
good and bad is defined and finite (in my case i use the Bible), therefore morals are based on what is good or bad (which don't change because you feel one way or the other).

until you have a solid unchangeable basis for good/bad, morals will always be subjective.

so for me, morals are absolute and not subjective.

that my view the the original post.

[MD Marketers]

the definition of good/bad you posted uses moral in it. however you want to define moral using good/bad. so right now you spinning top in mud. you like to offroad or what? lol

in any event, check out the following 2 scenarios.

1. subjective
if morality is subjective, then so is good and bad. why? because one day you can say something is good and next day, you can say it's bad. why? because you feel like it. therefore moral, good and bad really has no meaning because it always changes.

2. absolute
good and bad is defined and finite (in my case i use the Bible), therefore morals are based on what is good or bad (which don't change because you feel one way or the other).

until you have a solid unchangeable basis for good/bad, morals will always be subjective.

so for me, morals are absolute and not subjective.

that my view the the original post.

Was hoping someone would bring up this topic so I can finally get a reason to discuss it
Your are arguing with the English dictionary.
This is what they gave us as the definition of "good", "good will", "bad", "bad will" & "morality"
I personally don't like it.
I personally don't believe it should be used.

I however have no choice but to use it when communicating until such time as I can invent new words to have a universal meaning added in our dictionaries.

How else are you supposed to define something if we cannot use the language we speak and the defining rules of each word in reference to that language.

The challenge still remains you cannot prove:
A bad "good will" or a good "bad will"
Thus "good will" & "bad will" are objective morality

If the reason is because our dictionary doesn't properly define it, then it still remains a fact that we cannot prove it.

It may be just as true that we cannot prove a good "good will", but that wasn't the challenge.

[Altec55]

ok, but how would you define good, bad and moral?

[MD Marketers]

ok, but how would you define good, bad and moral?

By repeating the words used in the English dictionary.

[Advent]

yes ignore my post on solipsism

[MD Marketers]

I never said I believe in solipsism.
I claimed solipsist have a valid point because we can only prove 1 absolute thing.
I am ready to defend that point, not solipsism.
You are claiming I am a solipsist because I agree with one of their point of views.

That is like saying I'm a Christian simply because I believe Christ died on a cross.

[Advent]

I never said I believe in solipsism.
I claimed solipsist have a valid point because we can only prove 1 absolute thing.
I am ready to defend that point, not solipsism.
You are claiming I am a solipsist because I agree with one of their point of views.

That is like saying I'm a Christian simply because I believe Christ died on a cross.

"The only thing you can know for certain is that your thoughts exist, because "you are aware, therefore your thoughts must exist""

That is the foundation for the solipsist position though..
Since when can we only "prove" we exist ?

[Altec55]

ok, but how would you define good, bad and moral?

By repeating the words used in the English dictionary.

ohhhh ok, well then it sounds like you'll have to stay stuck spinning top in mud...until a new meaning for good and bad are discovered.

[MD Marketers]

ok, but how would you define good, bad and moral?

By repeating the words used in the English dictionary.

ohhhh ok, well then it sounds like you'll have to stay stuck spinning top in mud...until a new meaning for good and bad are discovered.

That's precisely the point desifemlove & I are trying to make.
Trying to objectively define morality is like spinning top in mud.

The only difference is im trying to make an objective definition of morality using a subjective definition of "good will & bad will" as a way of proving how it can be applied.

Would you care to show us how the definition of "good will" or "good" is considered circular logic?

[Slartibartfast]

Here is my argument. I am going to break it down as simply as I can.

In my argument, the following words shall take on the meanings and context described below. I understand these words are general and can take on different meanings but I am aiming to streamline the argument and keep it simple.

HARM - Any injury/pain/discomfort that may be physical/emotional/mental etc.
BAD - Something that brings harm to someone or increases the effects of harm on people etc.
GOOD - Something that reduces the effects of harm on a person or a group of people.
RIGHT - An action made with intention to do something good
WRONG - An action made with intention to do something bad

My argument is that morality is not purely subjective.

My argument is that there is an underlying principle that acts as an objective underlying principle of morality (this then means that morality is not purely subjective.

The objective underlying principle can be summarised into the three following words
"DO NO HARM"

This simple phrase can be expanded to say "Do as little net harm as possible in the given situation".

Copy and pasted from the other thread because this argument is yet to be directly addressed.

I believe all morality is subjectively based upon the objective principle stated above. Note that morality would also be subjected to the perceived relative importance of all of the individuals being affected.

Show me a scenario that proves otherwise.

[MD Marketers]

Sbf.
Please ask the question properly.
1 sentence. I will use your definitions to respond properly.
Try not to make it an omniscient question if you could or I'm gonna go zoom raider on you

[Slartibartfast]

Directly disprove the following statement.

"Do as little net harm as possible in the given situation" is the objective underlying principle of morality.

[X2]

Directly disprove the following statement.

"Do as little net harm as possible in the given situation" is the objective underlying principle of morality.

Ah, but is that absolute... as it can be also seen as conservation... and conservation can cause error in some situations. There by, doing the right thing is not necessarily always the conservative or 'moral' thing.

[Slartibartfast]

Illustrate your point with a hypothetical but probable situation.

[X2]

In some countries, water is harder to come by than a 40 year old virgin... but in others... we flush after every piss and brush our teeth with the tap on... In some African countries that would be morally wrong... but even in TnT... it's common place and no grounds for being appalled.
Unfortunately most human decisions lead toward the 'immoral scale' from a holier than thou perspective (nobody suffers but the sinners)... but there are so many hypothetical situations.

Cancer treatment... from a simple standpoint... can be quite invasive, such as radiation. Too much and you kill both the patient and the cancer... too little and the cancer comes back.

Prison system... people in jail for years for carrying a plant like substance, while others walking free after short sentences for violence, rape, murder, extortion.

Was it morally wrong to drop the bomb on the Japs and not the Germans... or was it morally wrong to have NOT dropped it on the Germans to end the war. If they did, German wouldn't be Europe's financial darling as it is today.

What if you have a family to protect and:

1) A scruffy looking stranger is approaching the front door... he's carrying a back pack and has an iPhone in his hand... should we shoot him ? HELL NO !!!
or

2) A scruffy looking stranger is approaching the front door... he's carrying a back pack and a loaded gun in his hand.... should we shoot him ? HELLS YES !!!

What if I told you this wasn't Syria or Iraq... but Trinidad.

Would you shoot in either scenario ?

And even if you did shoot... would you shoot for the head ?

Morality is flexible and can be a victim of circumstance.

[MD Marketers]

In case people dont want to read, watch this video of "md marketers" solipsistic position is complete BULLSH..T.............

[Slartibartfast]

In some countries, water is harder to come by than a 40 year old virgin... but in others... we flush after every piss and brush our teeth with the tap on... In some African countries that would be morally wrong... but even in TnT... it's common place and no grounds for being appalled.Morally wrong to waste a rare but essential for life commodity. Wastage in where you speak of can mean somebody can very likely go without and you cannot live without water (can cause harm). In Trinidad there is no such consequence to flushing your toilet after every piss (extremely unlikely to cause harm)
Unfortunately most human decisions lead toward the 'immoral scale' from a holier than thou perspective (nobody suffers but the sinners)... but there are so many hypothetical situations.

Cancer treatment... from a simple standpoint... can be quite invasive, such as radiation. Too much and you kill both the patient and the cancer... too little and the cancer comes back.Not sure what this is meant to prove. Arguments needs further development

Prison system... people in jail for years for carrying a plant like substance, while others walking free after short sentences for violence, rape, murder, extortion.I think punishing a smoker (for smoking and possessing herbs only) as though they were are murderer or rapist causes more harm than letting them walk free or sending them to rehab. Therefore I believe this is morally wrong.

Was it morally wrong to drop the bomb on the Japs and not the Germans... or was it morally wrong to have NOT dropped it on the Germans to end the war. If they did, German wouldn't be Europe's financial darling as it is today.The following video discusses precisely that. Notice that they use the reasoning "Do as little net harm as possible" to argue their point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmIBbcxseXM

What if you have a family to protect and:

1) A scruffy looking stranger is approaching the front door... he's carrying a back pack and has an iPhone in his hand... should we shoot him ? HELL NO !!! Shooting him would cause more harm than not shooting him.
or

2) A scruffy looking stranger is approaching the front door... he's carrying a back pack and a loaded gun in his hand.... should we shoot him ? HELLS YES !!!You place a higher importance on the life of you and your family over the life of the stranger. From your perspective shooting the stranger would result in less net harm

What if I told you this wasn't Syria or Iraq... but Trinidad.

Would you shoot in either scenario ?The country is irrelevant. If I viewed the assailant as an immediate threat and I had the opportunity I would shoot without hesitation for the reason stated above.

And even if you did shoot... would you shoot for the head ?Centre mass... three times while moving out of the way. My aim is to neutralise the threat for the reasons stated above. I can miss if I try shooting for the head and if I hit I think it would be hard on his loved ones when they have to view the body to identify him/ at the funeral and they did not wrong to have to suffer that grief. That second point of course is my own point of view and another person may place zero importance on that. Given the situation, I owe nothing to the victim's family and choosing where I shoot him does not change the morality of the action of getting rid of the threat. If he dies or doesn't is not my concern. My only concern is that my family and I live for precisely the reasons stated earlier

Morality is flexible and can be a victim of circumstance.Yes I agree with this. I have agreed with this from the very beginning. Read over my argument.

I agree that all of morality is subjective to the circumstances and individuals involved. However, using your examples with the iphone and the gun visitors above, we tend to agree on what is morally right and wrong. I was aiming to find out "What is it that makes us agree on what is morally right and wrong?". How is it that we, as two complete strangers, can agree that it is wrong to shoot someone showing up to your house with an iPhone.

My answer is that in all cases, we innately start with the statement "Do no harm" and subjectively build upon that taking into consideration all that we are aware of at the point in time to reach a morally acceptable decision. Note that in most cases there would not be a "morally best" decision because there may be differences in how people interpret a situation. Like in your example above, I believe it is best to shoot for centre mass three times. You may say shoot to the chest once. Another might say shoot of the head twice. In the end, all actions aim to save you and your family and are therefore all morally acceptable.

P.S. MD please ignore this entire post. You are only required to reply to my extremely simplified "one liner" argument.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Historic decision by the SCOTUS to legalize gay marriage across all states.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-26/gay-marriage-legalized-nationwide-by-u-s-supreme-court-ibdovxv1

The religious conservative are probably fuming at the mouth

[MD Marketers]

In some countries, water is harder to come by than a 40 year old virgin... but in others... we flush after every piss and brush our teeth with the tap on... In some African countries that would be morally wrong... but even in TnT... it's common place and no grounds for being appalled.Morally wrong to waste a rare but essential for life commodity. Wastage in where you speak of can mean somebody can very likely go without and you cannot live without water (can cause harm). In Trinidad there is no such consequence to flushing your toilet after every piss (extremely unlikely to cause harm)
Unfortunately most human decisions lead toward the 'immoral scale' from a holier than thou perspective (nobody suffers but the sinners)... but there are so many hypothetical situations.

Cancer treatment... from a simple standpoint... can be quite invasive, such as radiation. Too much and you kill both the patient and the cancer... too little and the cancer comes back.Not sure what this is meant to prove. Arguments needs further development

Prison system... people in jail for years for carrying a plant like substance, while others walking free after short sentences for violence, rape, murder, extortion.I think punishing a smoker (for smoking and possessing herbs only) as though they were are murderer or rapist causes more harm than letting them walk free or sending them to rehab. Therefore I believe this is morally wrong.

Was it morally wrong to drop the bomb on the Japs and not the Germans... or was it morally wrong to have NOT dropped it on the Germans to end the war. If they did, German wouldn't be Europe's financial darling as it is today.The following video discusses precisely that. Notice that they use the reasoning "Do as little net harm as possible" to argue their point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmIBbcxseXM

What if you have a family to protect and:

1) A scruffy looking stranger is approaching the front door... he's carrying a back pack and has an iPhone in his hand... should we shoot him ? HELL NO !!! Shooting him would cause more harm than not shooting him.
or

2) A scruffy looking stranger is approaching the front door... he's carrying a back pack and a loaded gun in his hand.... should we shoot him ? HELLS YES !!!You place a higher importance on the life of you and your family over the life of the stranger. From your perspective shooting the stranger would result in less net harm

What if I told you this wasn't Syria or Iraq... but Trinidad.

Would you shoot in either scenario ?The country is irrelevant. If I viewed the assailant as an immediate threat and I had the opportunity I would shoot without hesitation for the reason stated above.

And even if you did shoot... would you shoot for the head ?Centre mass... three times while moving out of the way. My aim is to neutralise the threat for the reasons stated above. I can miss if I try shooting for the head and if I hit I think it would be hard on his loved ones when they have to view the body to identify him/ at the funeral and they did not wrong to have to suffer that grief. That second point of course is my own point of view and another person may place zero importance on that. Given the situation, I owe nothing to the victim's family and choosing where I shoot him does not change the morality of the action of getting rid of the threat. If he dies or doesn't is not my concern. My only concern is that my family and I live for precisely the reasons stated earlier

Morality is flexible and can be a victim of circumstance.Yes I agree with this. I have agreed with this from the very beginning. Read over my argument.

I agree that all of morality is subjective to the circumstances and individuals involved. However, using your examples with the iphone and the gun visitors above, we tend to agree on what is morally right and wrong. I was aiming to find out "What is it that makes us agree on what is morally right and wrong?". How is it that we, as two complete strangers, can agree that it is wrong to shoot someone showing up to your house with an iPhone.

My answer is that in all cases, we innately start with the statement "Do no harm" and subjectively build upon that taking into consideration all that we are aware of at the point in time to reach a morally acceptable decision. Note that in most cases there would not be a "morally best" decision because there may be differences in how people interpret a situation. Like in your example above, I believe it is best to shoot for centre mass three times. You may say shoot to the chest once. Another might say shoot of the head twice. In the end, all actions aim to save you and your family and are therefore all morally acceptable.

P.S. MD please ignore this entire post. You are only required to reply to my extremely simplified "one liner" argument.