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 · Edited by Blaze The Great

    Indeed it basically is. Problem is that it came from the misfortune Germany had once suffered, and people were very frustated. Therefore, this Hitler guy got rid of it in the wrong way to 'improve' his country and let his obsession also trying to conquer the world because he saw fittable for doing so thanks to his all recreated and false ego. Period.

    The real problem behind nazism was a pretty negative manifesto of many bad things happened to the germans. In order to avoid such things that can lead pretty much to unnecessary attroicites, is better to take care of each other kinda like US helped most of Europe countries rather than going berserk and without thiking the real consequences.

    I am not the one blaming the simplest things in real life. I mean, I always prefered to check where the problems come from to analyze properly why anything happens in this way and not in another. We're 'humans', at least we relativize and we think, we create ideas, but mostly important we also have feelings, some basically positive, others more 'negative' or way too 'stronk' to handle, lol. Nazism was in reality born from a strong fusion of the people's frustation and and desperate desire to reach a solution for them, despite the chaos they let go after all what they did.

    And while any nazi follower could yell at me that he feels superior and, therefore, can do anything whatever wants to, because he states that is simply correct by his ideology's terms and can believe in that, I won't say or do anything unless he pretends to do something ... nasty. You know, basic self defense.

    I know the dangers of this ideology like any sane man. But it always depends the way you look at it rather than saying all nazism's followers are wrong, cause that can also lead to strongs prejudices in my opinion. Just let it be for now, unless you don't want to provoke them like it could happen anytime with North Korea. Multiple times threatening to take over us, but in reality, unless they're really crazy enough or desperate to do so ('desperate' cause I don't see the country is in such bad shape like Germany, which was in a desperate condition and, naturally, like the Nohr army could declare war to the Hoshido realms cause both were starving to death), is better to let the yapping going around 'em, lol. That's when I'm talking about 'respecting' other's 'morals', unless they really want to mess up with ya, there you go then.

    One can think anything wants to, as long as that doesn't determinate to her / him to do anything unnecesary and bad for the rest of people. You know, like they say "one person's freedom ends where the other person's nose begins".

    Sorry if I seem to keep my sensitivity way too much, but I'm kinda like that at times, hehe

    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.

    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

    @Augestein

    Still waiting for you to address HOW you know that conflicting views stem from subjective morality. Just because we can't see something doesn't mean that it isn't there. Objective morality could very easily be naturally infused in our conscience, and it gets diluted by our biases, experiences and the like. Until there is VERY strong evidence for no objective morality, my points stand.

    Also, as an aside, I'm assuming that it could still be considered objective morality if it was objective for every act, correct? Sort of like rule vs. act utilitarianism, but on a much broader scale. As long as it can't be changed for that specific case, it's still objective.

    Is there an objective morality?

    in Serious Discussion

    Posted

    True there are many kind of moralities, but I always pretend to think about the bigger picture. I was simply talking about a kind of best morality for everyone, :> It's a must to respect anyone how feels, that's to begin with, then trying to understand people is another key factor.

    And about my MGS4 reference post, well, there was this guy, Snake Eater (Big Boss), who wanted to change the world when it was quite cruel to him while in the harsh times of the Cold War. For many politicial reasons, he participated in an infiltrating mission that involved his mentor who was like a mother figure for himself. She was then unfairly killed by Snake, though necessary cause was a double agent in reality and had to mess up many things between the big factions (USA vs Russia) in order to stop nuclear conflict. She quite sacrificed herself to let a better future for his pupil as he could live a better life only for himself and those around him.

    One very importat thing I also needed to add before is that Big Boss strongly advised to leave the mercenary fight to Solid Snake (his son), since it never had any real sense his little personal vendetta against the whole world. When the global conflict he let to be raised up was ended thanks to his son, he pledged him to live nor as a 'Snake', but rather as a real man for the rest of his life.

    So, in short: just live for your own godamnit business. Everythig subjective is important, but at the same time, it isn't at all, really.

    May it sounds kind of cynical, but my point is to be fair between subjectivism and objectivism, because BOTH aren't right at all times. Never. And Snake Eater wanted to change too much things, wanted to see the world as a whole somehow as his mentor envisioned, but what both couldn't understand is, while they may feel right to seek for the best of everyone, is that they simply can't change the world. Ironic you may have the power to do that, but even so, what about you then? Do you really need to do that? That's the real problem of subjectivism, it may makes you feel allright, but at the same time, there is more than that, you know what I mean. And Snake Eater truly was obsessive to prove that the world was wrong cause of its own unfairness, yet all what he did is to make worst the matter, messing up things where he didn't need to.

    You may understand all of this a little better if you check the amazing story from Metal Gear Solid. It Has some great morale behind it, as you can see.

    Ok, I kinda understand where you are coming from. I'm familiar with the MGS series, but not well-acquainted with it.

    I don't agree with your statement that a morality that is best for everyone should be pursued, because a morality that is great for one person might be terrible for the next. Otherwise, I see what you're saying.

    Is there an objective morality?

    in Serious Discussion

    Posted

    Again, too lazy to format this properly. This first part is my response to Erdall:

    Err...morality is not an agreement between people. Try "pact" or "contract". Morality is one's personal beliefs about right and wrong. Now, morality can be USED to try and find the best solution between parties (i.e. if I believe it is immoral to steal something from my friend but I really want it anyway, we could hypothetically reach a solution). I can kinda see where you're going with this, but your English is a little rough. No offense meant, as I see you are from Spain, so unless you were a born English speaker, I don't expect you to have it totally down.

    Your second part seemed to miss my point entirely, so I will ignore it. As for the snickers thing, I knew what you were saying, but it seemed somewhat out of context. I may come across as kind of stern, but this is Serious Discussion after all. :P

    I'm confused about your last part, but it seemed that you were acting cordially, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

    No, it doesn't. However, a subject that is addressed as a principles of "right and wrong," cannot be objective, because quite literally, morals are based on agreements of what people say are right and wrong. You have a set of morals that you believe in based off of your own logical conclusions based on your experiences or not. Perceptions are essentially what make morals. Without perceptions of situations and various ways that a person feels/wants things to be, there isn't morality. It requires one to actually *care* about a situation. Objective morality just sounds like madness to be honest.

    Note, I merely quoted this because I was responding to an earlier response from you, AND this first portion of the post I found kinda interesting.

    I feel like you keep beating around the bush on this, so to speak. You keep addressing the fact of conflicting moral beliefs, and no one, myself included, is debating you on that. But how do you know there is no objective morality? Is there any proof that there is not a definitive list of right and wrong? No. Now, that may sound like an argument from ignorance, but I think our intuitions/conscience may be rooted in some objective morality. Of course, that statement in itself is a gateway into a whole different debate, so I will leave it alone. My point is that I've yet to see someone address morality instead of perceptions of such.

    Is there an objective morality?

    in Serious Discussion

    Posted

    Becuase any sort of problem / moral dilemma is always tied somehow about pure subjectivism.

    Even I am being subjective w/e I am trying to do, like writing this post and trying to make understandable my point about what I intented to express (reality versus emotions = objectivism versus subjectivism), but I guess is totally irrelevant because you believe to say so ... and that's it?

    Okay, then. Here, have a snickers for ya.

    Important P.S: (Get the idea why I was talking about changing the world? Everyone wants to change it for any sort of reason, but it's simply impossible, no matter what. Yeah, if everyone accepts that, I can't tell if this could be XXI century, but maybe XXII if possible ...).

    In two words, damnit: Humbleness and Respect.

    People having subjective perceptions of morality does not mean that morality itself is subjective. Secondly, being moral =/= trying to change the world? Unless you are the type of person who thinks every little kind act is changing the world, I fail to see the relevance here.

    Again, subjective perceptions of something does not mean that said thing itself is subjective. If someone says that colors are a fabrication of the Illuminati, and I say that they are not; they are just colors, that does not mean that that is subjective. Whether or not they are is fact, and that doesn't change just because someone says they otherwise.

    Seriously, have a snickers? Where did you even get that?

    Also, you sound more like a cynicist who is done with the world than someone who is interested in debating morality.

    Is there an objective morality?

    in Serious Discussion

    Posted

    Cutting to the chase:

    A man once tried to change the world. Therefore, he tried, he did, he dared to be the oppressor, the savior of the whole word, putting all kind of good and badass people aside, yet he tried to do all of that so hard ...

    He gained nothing but continuous sacrifices, pain, suffering ... the loose of many dear friends. And yet ... nothing but more misery to his heart despite of his own goodness to make things better.

    Then he looked to a son that he thought he could loose forever, one he once chose to ignore because he simply believed that he didn't deserve to be his father. However, when he met him one last time before passing away, he was glad to tell him that he's truly sorry for all what he pretended to do: being nothing but a hero.

    Heroes don't exist by the way. Only people willing to sacrifice themselves in order to change things in a big deal. Now those are great, real and respectable people, but only when it really has to come for something right.

    The father then told to his so now dearly son:

    "Son, don't fight. My Boss ... The Boss. She was right. It was never about changing the world. It's about doing our best to leave the world... the way it is. It's about respecting the will of others, and believing in your own."

    Moral: Just leave and f@#$!ing let it be. You can't change the world, rather to preserve it for the best or leave it for the worst, but never tempt you can do that entirely. Just live for your best and for those around you.

    The End.

    Just wanted to share my opinion though.

    And this is relevant to the topic of objective vs. subjective morality how? We are talking about morality here, not changing the world. Kinda a big difference between the two.

    Is there an objective morality?

    in Serious Discussion

    Posted

    As an addendum, it is not because we can't quite define if x is morally right or wrong that moral realism doesn't exist; it just means we aren't capable of knowing at the time. It is also related to our perceptions, like what you cited.

    So, since neither realism nor anti-realism can be proven, at the end of the day we just follow our intuitions? It's what I've understood so far...

    Yeah, I think you are right.

    As far as intuitions, they are a good starting point, in my mind. For instance, as we've already used, the typical human being won't fly a plane into a class of kindergarteners for fun, because it is intuitively wrong to us. But where you go from there seems to be up to your own personal moral/ethical preference.

×
×
  • Create New...