Jump to content

Blaze The Great

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    910

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Blaze The Great

  1. Blaze The Great
    As far as I know, you don't.
  2. Blaze The Great
    Ahh I see. Enjoy yourself.
  3. Blaze The Great
    I never said you were wrong, I just said that your statement contradicted what I had already read.
  4. Blaze The Great
    Handhelds > Consoles
  5. Blaze The Great
    Hail Mother Russia!!! Please tell me I didn't actually just say that on a public forum... Anyway, to answer the question, yes.
  6. Blaze The Great
    Again, from what I've read, they are not the same. The articles seem to be very confused as to whether morality is a personal system and ethics are more widely used principles, or vice versa, but they all seem to agree that they are different. They are both beliefs about right and wrong, yes, but they are different in the way they are applied to said beliefs.
  7. Blaze The Great
    This is...no...I just...no Is Marf in this game?
  8. Blaze The Great
    I don't know. Maybe you're right. But in the examples I provided, if morality is objective, then you could let the world die instead of killing the person who intended to launch the worldwide nuclear arsenal, because killing is immoral (according to your personal morality. I don't know). However, on the flipside, if morality is subjective, then nothing can be called immoral. And if laws are based in morality (as it seems to me they are), and everyone has subjective morality, then what basis do we even have for laws? Maybe I'm appealing to consequences here, but I see the negatives outweighing the positives from a subjective morality. Subjective overall morality is far worse than objective overall morality, but neither is a perfect solution. Objective morality should have common sense used alongside of it, and subjective morality...well, when everything is permissible if you believe in it, then you need to be REALLY careful.
  9. Blaze The Great
    Let's go with Trapsnatch.
  10. Blaze The Great
    ~heavy breathing~
  11. Blaze The Great
    So you're taking a trip to Canada?
  12. Blaze The Great
    Nice, I see we both got into FE the same way. Anyway, I'm hyped for this.
  13. Blaze The Great
    Why do you think that? I'm just curious, because it seems fairly obvious that ethics are derived from our morality, but are they really as simple as a bunch of people's moral beliefs put together? As for me, I'm more or less a moral realist. I don't think morality can be totally objective, nor can it be totally subjective. If it was totally objective, and we weren't supposed to lie, but lying could save someone's life, then that person would be dead. While on the other hand, if morality is completely subjective, going on a killing spree could have the same moral value for one person as donating $1 million to charity could have for another. But more or less, even if God didn't exist, I'd be a moral realist.
  14. Blaze The Great
    It's Tumblr. The same thing that gave us SJWS. NOTHING is too low for them.
  15. Blaze The Great
    Pssh, get your crazy talk out of here.
  16. Blaze The Great
    Well unless everything I have read is wrong (I haven't done thorough research, mind you, but I've read several different things), then ethics are generally societal principles created for determining proper conduct, whereas morals are generally more personal judgments about right vs. wrong. So, if ethics are created by society to focus on conduct, then it is impossible for them to exist independently of people. Now, MORALS can definitely exist independently of people, as they are our personal biases towards right and wrong, as opposed to the biases of a group on proper conduct. However, if ethics are society's method of determining good conduct, then they can't exist without our opinions. ...Maybe I'm looking into this too much/too little. Like I said before, correct me if I'm wrong. Also, upon studying a little more, I realized that this entire time I've been debating for subjective ETHICS, as opposed to subjective MORALS. Woops.
  17. Blaze The Great
    Err...correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the bolded part an impossibility? Since ethics is defined as proper conduct in society's eyes, then isn't it impossible for ethics to exist independently of the opinions of people? Or is it that ethics remain the same cross-culturally and can't be redefined by any culture?
  18. Blaze The Great
    Ahh I see. That makes sense.
  19. Blaze The Great

    Happy birthday.

  20. Blaze The Great
    Err...can Kingler not learn Surf? Or did you just not want to teach him any more HM moves?
  21. Blaze The Great
    That's a fair point, but shouldn't the goal to be maximizing a good result? Granted, you have to take this idea with a little bit of common sense and caution. I know it sounds rude, but if there is no better outcome, why not use utilitarianism to achieve this? Of course, that goes for all other ethics principles, but especially this one because of the weighing of good vs. bad results.
  22. Blaze The Great
    My main problem with this is, without a proper basis for morals, or "right and wrong", I'm not sure how we can properly determine what is absolutely moral and absolutely immoral. Actions must be, in my opinion, rationalized based on the situation, and as you said, not every case is the same. And this reminds me of the ethics principle utilitarianism, for some reason. I've seen it criticized before, and I don't understand the basis for said criticism, especially when it comes to act utilitarianism. May sound like a stupid question to some, but weighing the benefits vs. harms of one activity, especially in one specific case as opposed to a general rule, seems like a perfectly rational basis for actions.
  23. Blaze The Great
  24. Blaze The Great
    I THINK the 3rd Path, because of a major spoiler that I accidentally read on Fire Emblem Wiki. Actually, yeah, definitely 3rd Path. No other spoiler can be compared to the one I saw there.
  25. Blaze The Great
    The issue is that we as humans are subjective. I've never met a human with absolutely no bias, so none of us can claim to be purely objective beings. Therefore we have a subjective worldview, and in turn a subjective view of everything we see. We can't know what is absolutely right or absolutely wrong (unless God hypothetically came down and told us himself what was right), so we have to infer. We can try to weigh the rightness of acts (utilitarianism) but no system is perfect. I suppose in a way I am comparing making absolute and objective morality synonymous, but I don't see enough of a difference not to. I do agree with you in that I want to see what some of the smarter people have to say, as I'm probably even less qualified than you.
×
×
  • Create New...