Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Life, The Universe & Everything → Philosophy → Objective morality

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

New Britain
Yesterday at 11:51 PM
اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
February 15, 2025, 04:00 PM
Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
February 14, 2025, 08:00 AM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
February 13, 2025, 10:07 PM
Muslim grooming gangs sti...
February 13, 2025, 08:20 PM
German nationalist party ...
February 13, 2025, 01:15 PM
Lights on the way
by akay
February 13, 2025, 01:08 PM
Russia invades Ukraine
February 13, 2025, 11:01 AM
Islam and Science Fiction
February 11, 2025, 11:57 PM
Do humans have needed kno...
February 06, 2025, 03:13 PM
Gaza assault
February 05, 2025, 10:04 AM
AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
February 03, 2025, 09:25 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Objective morality

 (Read 19138 times)
  • Previous page 1 2 34 5 ... 7 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #60 - November 15, 2011, 10:18 PM
    How are we defining rationality here? Huh?
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #61 - November 15, 2011, 10:26 PM
    Since it was Kagan who started this off, I suppose we should ask how he defines it.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #62 - November 15, 2011, 10:29 PM
    I do not know about objective morality, but currently it does exist.
    Saying that God exists because objective morality exists is like saying that God exists because the universe exists.
    It's like me saying:
    If God doesn't exist, the universe wouldn't exist.
    The universe exists.
    Therefore, God exists.
    This argument is false because there is no correlation or proof that in the case of God's none existence, the universe, or in the presented case "objective morality", would not exist.
    In other words, there is no proof that God is the cause of the universe, of objective morality, or meatballs.
    I'm open for debate (of why we should re-/embrace Islam), but I will no longer participate in this forum. Message me if you need anything. Good luck and may you all find your way... again...
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #63 - November 15, 2011, 10:34 PM
    Quote from: luftazure on November 15, 2011, 10:29 PM
    I do not know about objective morality, but currently it does exist.

    Proof?
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #64 - November 15, 2011, 10:35 PM
    Quote from: osmanthus on November 15, 2011, 10:17 PM
    Ah. I mean "not worthy of consideration".

    Well then, surely the onus is on you to show why cost effectiveness is the only noteworthy consideration if I am to fairly answer your question.

    Quote from: Prince Spinoza on November 15, 2011, 10:18 PM
    How are we defining rationality here? Huh?

    I'd say the consistent method people are using in their brain to consider the factors in play and derive conclusions is a workable definition, in the context of this discussion at least.

    Unless people are consulting a magic 8 ball, or closing their eyes, holding their hand over the screen and going with what they 'feel'.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #65 - November 15, 2011, 10:41 PM
    Quote from: sturmgewehr on November 15, 2011, 09:38 PM
    Murder is never Justifiable.

    Killins is but since killing is a GENUS and murder is a species.

    Killing as a Genus is divided in many species which is:

    a) murder, which is killing an innocent person that has never done anything to you or to anyone

    b) Killing in Self defense, someone tries to kill u out of the blue sky and u defend urself and in the process u kill him.

    c) Execution, process executed by legal authorities like executing someone that has just raped and killed 5 kids.

    So no, murder is never justifiable.

    I like this one Smiley
    I'm open for debate (of why we should re-/embrace Islam), but I will no longer participate in this forum. Message me if you need anything. Good luck and may you all find your way... again...
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #66 - November 15, 2011, 10:42 PM
    Quote from: osmanthus on November 15, 2011, 10:34 PM
    Proof?

    Hm... torture maybe?
    I'm open for debate (of why we should re-/embrace Islam), but I will no longer participate in this forum. Message me if you need anything. Good luck and may you all find your way... again...
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #67 - November 15, 2011, 10:43 PM
    Quote from: Ishina on November 15, 2011, 10:35 PM
    Well then, surely the onus is on you to show why cost effectiveness is the only noteworthy consideration if I am to fairly answer your question.

    Well I'm not claiming that it is the only noteworthy consideration. I'm just saying that given the circumstances of the thought experiment in question, how would it be possible to rank it above or below other factors?
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #68 - November 15, 2011, 10:45 PM
    That is to say something like torture seems to be immoral objectively.
    Resorting to it if you have the ends justify the means mentality, doing this one bad thing for the greater good, does not deny that everyone still agrees that it is immoral.
    I'm open for debate (of why we should re-/embrace Islam), but I will no longer participate in this forum. Message me if you need anything. Good luck and may you all find your way... again...
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #69 - November 15, 2011, 10:49 PM
    Quote from: luftazure on November 15, 2011, 10:45 PM
    That is to say something like torture seems to be immoral objectively.
    Resorting to it if you have the ends justify the means mentality, doing this one bad thing for the greater good, does not deny that everyone still agrees that it is immoral.

    The bold part is incorrect.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #70 - November 15, 2011, 10:52 PM
    Quote from: osmanthus on November 15, 2011, 10:43 PM
    Well I'm not claiming that it is the only noteworthy consideration. I'm just saying that given the circumstances of the thought experiment in question, how would it be possible to rank it above or below other factors?

    In your thought experiment, cost effectiveness is the only consideration mentioned. That's why the answer I have already given still stands.

    It's your thought experiment. I'm not going to refine it and argue against myself.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #71 - November 15, 2011, 10:53 PM
    Quote from: osmanthus on November 15, 2011, 10:43 PM
    Well I'm not claiming that it is the only noteworthy consideration. I'm just saying that given the circumstances of the thought experiment in question, how would it be possible to rank it above or below other factors?

    Are you talking about financial implications?
    In the beginning you said that rape victim help centers or whatever do not affect the community as a whole since communities were doing just fine without them. I do not see a way to measure this, proving or disproving your claim.
    I'm open for debate (of why we should re-/embrace Islam), but I will no longer participate in this forum. Message me if you need anything. Good luck and may you all find your way... again...
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #72 - November 15, 2011, 10:56 PM
    Quote from: osmanthus on November 15, 2011, 10:49 PM
    The bold part is incorrect.

    Fine, the very vast majority then.
    So because some people are so abnormal that they don't think torture is immoral, it becomes subjective?
    I'm open for debate (of why we should re-/embrace Islam), but I will no longer participate in this forum. Message me if you need anything. Good luck and may you all find your way... again...
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #73 - November 15, 2011, 10:58 PM
    So is pain subjectively and not objectively bad because some people enjoy it?
    I'm open for debate (of why we should re-/embrace Islam), but I will no longer participate in this forum. Message me if you need anything. Good luck and may you all find your way... again...
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #74 - November 15, 2011, 10:59 PM
    Quote from: Ishina on November 15, 2011, 10:52 PM
    In your thought experiment, cost effectiveness is the only consideration mentioned. That's why the answer I have already given still stands.

    It's your thought experiment. I'm not going to refine it and argue against myself.

    Well it wasn't the only factor mentioned:

    Quote from: osmanthus on November 15, 2011, 09:00 PM
    Really. Ok, try this for an example.

    Let's say, hypothetically, that some research is done and it's found that abolishing all rape crisis and counselling services is the most cost effective option. Societal cohesion doesn't appear to be adversely impacted, overall productivity stays the same, as far as anyone can tell. Turns out that most people manage to deal with it, and for the extra cases that are more problematic, just giving them a few pills to keep them in robot mode works out cheaper than paying for counselling services, etc.

    Obviously, in this case the most utilitarian option would be to abolish those services. Should we do this or not?

    Bear in mind that you are talking to someone who can easily remember when none of these services existed, and society stayed together just fine, with good productivity.

    So, to be precise, the factors considered were:

    1/ Cost effectiveness
    2/ Societal cohesion
    3/ Overall productivity
    4/ Resiliency of many victims
    5/ Exceptionally difficult cases, and how to treat them
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #75 - November 15, 2011, 11:00 PM
    Quote from: luftazure on November 15, 2011, 10:56 PM
    Fine, the very vast majority then.
    So because some people are so abnormal that they don't think torture is immoral, it becomes subjective?

    Are you relying on argumentum ad populum here?
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #76 - November 15, 2011, 11:02 PM
    If the answer is yes, then I will say attempt to argue that something is objectively bad if most sane people agree that it is bad.
    I'm open for debate (of why we should re-/embrace Islam), but I will no longer participate in this forum. Message me if you need anything. Good luck and may you all find your way... again...
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #77 - November 15, 2011, 11:03 PM
    Quote from: osmanthus on November 15, 2011, 11:00 PM
    Are you relying on argumentum ad populum here?

    Yeah that's exactly what I'm relying on. Is this argument wrong in this case? Are those kinds of arguments always wrong?
    Why do ellections or votes exist then?
    I'm open for debate (of why we should re-/embrace Islam), but I will no longer participate in this forum. Message me if you need anything. Good luck and may you all find your way... again...
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #78 - November 15, 2011, 11:08 PM
    Democracy is not the same as objectivity. Democratic votes rely on people's collective impressions of who would be the best candidate. This is not necessarily proof that said candidate is objectively the best.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #79 - November 15, 2011, 11:14 PM
    Quote from: osmanthus on November 15, 2011, 10:26 PM
    Since it was Kagan who started this off, I suppose we should ask how he defines it.

    What is your understanding?
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #80 - November 15, 2011, 11:14 PM
    Long story short:
    To me:
    Majorly subjective = Almost objective
    Nothing is fully objective just like nothing is perfect.
    I'm open for debate (of why we should re-/embrace Islam), but I will no longer participate in this forum. Message me if you need anything. Good luck and may you all find your way... again...
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #81 - November 15, 2011, 11:19 PM
    Quote from: Prince Spinoza on November 15, 2011, 11:14 PM
    What is your understanding?

    I'll think about that one in between doing other stuff for the rest of the day. Smiley
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #82 - November 15, 2011, 11:42 PM
    Quote from: osmanthus on November 15, 2011, 10:59 PM
    Well it wasn't the only factor mentioned:

    It was apparently the deciding factor.

    Quote from: osmanthus on November 15, 2011, 10:59 PM
    So, to be precise, the factors considered were:

    1/ Cost effectiveness
    2/ Societal cohesion
    3/ Overall productivity
    4/ Resiliency of many victims
    5/ Exceptionally difficult cases, and how to treat them

    Nothing has changed, though. My answer stays the same. In this hypothetical universe you've imagined, the best course of action would indeed be to abolish rape crisis centers, all your factors considered.

    There are evidently more potential factors that you have chosen not to include in your hypothetical universe, for whatever reason. There are evidently more reasons why rape crisis centers exist, and you've agreed with that already.

    What are we disagreeing about?
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #83 - November 15, 2011, 11:44 PM
    Well I'm not sure we're actually disagreeing about anything. My question is how does anyone decide to weight the various factors in practice, for these sorts of decisions?

    For instance, I'd be against abolishing such centres, but to my mind this is primarily an emotional reaction rather than a rational one.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #84 - November 15, 2011, 11:46 PM
    Quote from: osmanthus on November 15, 2011, 11:44 PM
    Well I'm not sure we're actually disagreeing about anything. My question is how does anyone decide to weight the various factors in practice, for these sorts of decisions?

    Rationally  Tongue
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #85 - November 15, 2011, 11:49 PM
    Quote from: osmanthus on November 15, 2011, 11:44 PM
    For instance, I'd be against abolishing such centres, but to my mind this is primarily an emotional reaction rather than a rational one.

    There is nothing irrational about the sheer weight of evidence arrayed in favour of any kind of victim support.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #86 - November 15, 2011, 11:58 PM
    First you would have to provide the sheer weight of evidence. Does it exist? What does it consist of?
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #87 - November 16, 2011, 12:02 AM
    Quote from: Ishina on November 15, 2011, 11:46 PM
    Rationally  Tongue

    So to do this you presumably would have to have access to evidence that rigorously demonstrated a net societal benefit.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #88 - November 16, 2011, 12:05 AM
    It's midnight here. I don't have the time or energy to spoon feed you the reasons why rape crisis centers exist.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #89 - November 16, 2011, 12:09 AM
    Grin I know why they exist.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Previous page 1 2 34 5 ... 7 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »