Jump to content

Blaze The Great

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    910

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Blaze The Great

    Is there an objective morality?

    in Serious Discussion

    Posted

    sorry for my being unclear--by "not affect anything," i meant what you kinda already said earlier. just because we come to a conclusion doesn't mean we'll follow it. if a society accepts taking people's lives willy-nilly, objective morality stating it's wrong, and the people don't change, does that conclusion actually affect anything? i know that the results of that society in terms of lives lost will differ from from cultures we know of currently, but that part's not important for the thought experiment.

    i see.

    Huh. Okay, I understand now. Well then in that case, no, it doesn't have any effect on those people, unless they later see the consequences of not following that and deem it immoral to kill without just cause. But my point stands, just because it has no meaning for people does not make it untrue. It may have no value, morally or otherwise, for those people, but if it was objectively moral, it would still be objectively moral.

    Is there an objective morality?

    in Serious Discussion

    Posted

    how? if taking another's life is objectively wrong, but no one accepts it (ie, the belief is universally contrary to the truth), how will this affect anything? i don't see how a hypothetical objective morality will actually change us unless we use the information to change us.

    and i asked olwen this question, but he either missed it or ignored it: if everyone had the same culture, would ethics be objective?

    I think it's safe to assume that if murder was legal, the rate at which murder occurs in that society would be higher than said rate in a society where murder is forbidden. Now, I'm not an expert on crime's effects on a population, but I'm sure that there would be some such as overall dissatisfaction, increased fear, increased paranoia, more revenge/unprovoked attacks, etc. All just personal speculation, but none of it seems unreasonable. So yes, there would be effects, most likely adverse ones, on a population that accepted murder.

    Also, I do think those would be objective ethics. Not even out of chance, but out of necessity. Again, as I continuously bring up, from the minimal research I have done, ethics are general principles for proper conduct, and so they are judged extra-personally.

    Is there an objective morality?

    in Serious Discussion

    Posted

    does something lose its "truth value"? well, no, since the value of truth outweighs the value of delusion. it's not like i don't personally value truth, but i don't think truth itself is intrinsically valuable.

    overall meaning? i don't know what this means. if you mean to ask if it loses its overall utility then yes! i certainly feel that it does. reasons are outlined above.

    truth isn't really useful unless we make it useful.

    and are we all in agreement or something that ethics is objective? cause i don't buy that.

    Alright, we've come to the conclusion that something is a fact regardless of our beliefs. Now, certain facts have direct effects on our lives. So, if morality is "factual" (hypotheticslly, of course) then what we believe about us will affect our lives, regardless of the beliefs being held.

    Also, I don't think we have agreed on objective ethics. On the contrary, I think that ethics are very subjective because they change cross-culturally.

    Not necessarily. The objective morality we're talking about could have axioms that lead to the conclusion that humanity ought to go extinct. If that morality is correct, and we discover it, do you think that we will commit suicide? No. We will go after our desires before anything else. Suddenly the truth of the matter will mean nothing to anyone.If you happen to have trouble accepting that objective morality and humanity's interests may be at odds in every way, then you have proven to yourself that I am right.

    It seems like we've come back to square 1, because we already had reached the premise that in this scenario people aren't following the objective morality.

    Anyway, if we come to a conclusion, it's not guaranteed that we will follow it. Also, unless self-destruction is the best path for humanity to take, then humanity's extinction would virtually destroy the premise of morality. Animals cannot be moral; they can only act on instinct, so there would be no reason for morality to exist if not for humanity (unless you believe in a God, but that's a different debate).

    I admit though, that was a good point, and it made me think for a while.

    Is there an objective morality?

    in Serious Discussion

    Posted

    umm...

    which olwen then didn't reply to...because the argument isn't focused on it being a truth, but whether it matters or not.

    Does something lose its truth value or overall meaning just because some people don't believe it? Those people may not FEEL that it matters differently, but that won't mean that they can't be affected by it.

    Take a society where stealing is legal, because the people there all view stealing as something that is not morally wrong. Now, how will this society differ from most? Well, obviously, no stealing laws. People will likely be paranoid. Resources could become more scarce, because there will almost assuredly be people hoarding resources. Violence related to stealing would skyrocket. So, just because they don't think stealing is wrong does not mean that there will be no effect of that belief.

    Is there an objective morality?

    in Serious Discussion

    Posted

    makaze has a point. if there exists an objective morality, but no one excepts it save a select few (if that), it doesn't actually hold any real meaning. it's not a question of whether we'd be affected or not, but whether the discovery has any actual meaning.

    if everyone on earth, save a few, still believed in the aether over em radiation, the meaning of the discovery is lost.

    in this case--the answer one way or the other doesn't matter all that much, so its meaning is most certainly lost. your analogy fails because morality isn't a physical thing that actually can have an effect on anything. by virtue of our existence morality is given purpose.

    The point is that not believing something doesn't make it untrue. Regardless of how few people believe it, if x is objectively true then x will ALWAYS be objectively true. Just because we can't see meaning in it doesn't mean it is untrue.

    So what? What people think/find useful has nothing to do with truth.

    Chiki put it well.

    Is there an objective morality?

    in Serious Discussion

    Posted

    If so-called objective morality exists as an ought, but is not held by anyone and has no effect on reality, then what meaning does it have?

    If it existed as an ought, then wouldn't society be better off to hold that morality? Also, it sounds like a high school type thing to bring up, but just because everyone is doing something doesn't mean it's right. If everyone said that the sun is fake, that wouldn't make it fake. The sun would still have an effect on us, we just wouldn't believe it.

    Is there an objective morality?

    in Serious Discussion

    Posted

    Voiceover from Smash Bros.: And the winner is ...

    Meh, you didn't need to say that fellaw. My arguments, though, I understand that they can be quite contradictory at times. Everyone's got quirks, you know, x'D

    My summarized point about all this is: beware of 'looking amorale-dangerous' ideologies. Stay calm and ready tu judge them by pure, ordered common sense, not by prejudicing a lot. We all know that, basically, nazism is mostly a cancer for humanity, but it is there and it will always exist, one way or another. Just to say, never mankind will be free of such inner morale struggles, but fortunately we can endure to resist it, and also choose at times to be a little pragmatic and ignoring these kind of debates. You know, not everything in this life shall be about fightning or discussing serious topics like these.

    Well, my pleasure to share opinions with you, I guess. See ya later.

    I'm not trying to discredit the things you've said. They make sense. They just don't seem to follow the line of thought of this topic, and I don't really see how they relate. Some of your ideas don't make a ton of sense, especially within context, but I'll look past that. If you want to say anything else, feel free, but try to keep more on topic. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding you, and if so, my bad.

    Is there an objective morality?

    in Serious Discussion

    Posted

    Moral relativism is the logical conclusion when you determine that the is-ought barrier exists. What you're suggesting is that relativity itself is paradoxical. It may not be intuitive but it can be true that something is neither true nor false. Take the liar's paradox, which goes: "This statement is false." It is defensible that [it is true that] the statement is neither true nor false.

    How is it a logical conclusion? To me the logical conclusion seems more like an acceptance of dissonance (i.e. descriptive ethics) rather than moral relativism. Just because you see that x should be but it is not, does not mean that morals are relative. It means that the moral opinions of people on x conflict each other, so we have different perspectives on the morality of x.

    Is there an objective morality?

    in Serious Discussion

    Posted

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

    Unless someone is totally ignorant of Nazism, they can't misjudge it. Racism, genocide, and conquest are a part of their beliefs. There is no way around it. If someone understands what Nazism is, they understand what their beliefs will probably lead to. No two ways about it.

    Part of it, not entirely. I don't like to deal with extremes one way or another anyway. Besides, there is a ridicolous minority believeing in the Führer, so no big deal at all.

    The biggest front to confront right now is about dealing with NK. Nowdays, we have a misunderstanding problem problem with that.

    Respect and rationality are not the same, no matter the context. If you don't understand that, I implore you to look at a dictionary. If we respect North Korea, we will honor their requests and act in a way befitting of two countrirs, regardless of how they view each other. However, the only "irrational" behavior would be to destroy them. I suppose you could argue that it is irrational to treat them poorly, but that's just how diplomacy works. And that is to say, a lot of the time it does not.

    Yeah, well, I was talking like to be rational implores to be tolerant about anything you may dislike, but at least you try to see why somebody likes that. That's all what I was trying to express.

    Now, let me jump to a personal conclussion: you seem to seek something against NK by this "I suppose you could argue that is irrational to treat them poorly, but that's just how diplomacy works". Still, I need you to explain with more details about that part, cause I'm kinda lost how exactly diplomacy works or that we shall punish them directly without thinking twice, etc ... I can't really tell, honestly.

    Just because not all of Nazism is totally extreme beliefs does not mean that none of it is. Typically normal ideas (restoring your country to greatness) do not cancel out your thoughts of genocide lingering just beyond. In addition to that, it does not matter the quantity of people who share the beliefs, but the quality of beliefs that are held. And Nazi beliefs are very bad, overall.

    As for my part about North Korea, I never implied anything, or at the least, I didn't mean to. The US, while on generally bad terms with NK, is still acting rationally towards them. In diplomacy relationships are often strained and typical diplomatic protocol isn't always followed. Take the US and Iran in the 70s, when Iranians stormed the US Embassy in Tehran. If things go south, then "rational" diplomatic protocol could be thrown to the wind. As for the broader issue, it would be irrational to destroy North Korea, even if some people want to. Why, you ask? They pose no threat to us, they have not provoked us or our allies, the positive consequences would be minimal and the negative ones possibly catastrophic, and they themselves are not without powerful allies (China, India, possibly Russia), so we should not harm them as of now.

    I have no personal problem with NK, but my language is often blunt. I've seen people saying we should destroy them now, and honestly that's a load of garbage. So yeah.

    Is there an objective morality?

    in Serious Discussion

    Posted

    I feel like you confused a couple things. Juging by your post, when you say ideology, it would make more sense to replace that with "means to an ends". Nazi ideology, no matter how someone tries to spin it, is restore Germany to glory, take over, kill Jews, etc. It is, from almost every view, wrong. However, Hitler's end (restoring Germany to glory) was not so bad in itself. The means he chose (trying to take over the world, blaming and killing Jews) were much more controversial and generally evil. He certainly could have taken a more moral path to restoring Germany.

    What I was trying to emphazise as well. Nazism ITSELF could be judged one way or another (and yada yada), but it was more like the way was carried on in the end. The means Hitler chose as you stated were perfectly wrong, and that sums it up.

    Also, how exactly are we respecting the morals of NK when they threaten us? Are we doing them a favor by not wiping them off the face of the map? I don't see how we are respecting their 'morals'. Respect isn't not blowing them up. It's called being rational, lol. Though some would argue we should just get it over with, because it will happen one day anyway

    What I just said. Again.

    Respect, rationality ... quite the same on the context. But if NK tries to mess up against us, well ... what a mess for everyone, but specially for them if they try to dare way too much, heh. But one shall not be opened to negative expectations too much. Nobody knows what holds the future, so that's a good reason enough to keep things calmed and not way too shady in any case.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

    Unless someone is totally ignorant of Nazism, they can't misjudge it. Racism, genocide, and conquest are a part of their beliefs. There is no way around it. If someone understands what Nazism is, they understand what their beliefs will probably lead to. No two ways about it.

    Respect and rationality are not the same, no matter the context. If you don't understand that, I implore you to look at a dictionary. If we respect North Korea, we will honor their requests and act in a way befitting of two countrirs, regardless of how they view each other. However, the only "irrational" behavior would be to destroy them. I suppose you could argue that it is irrational to treat them poorly, but that's just how diplomacy works. And that is to say, a lot of the time it does not.

×
×
  • Create New...