| "There's no such thing as objective morality'', says the average joe. News Flash: X mother killed her own daughter on fear that her daughter was possessed by the devil. "What the fuck is this? they're so archaic! like omg killing people is so wrong and killing your own daughter is even more wrong!", says the average joe again. There's an obvious contradiction. No one wants to tread into its territory because it's beyond the comfort zone of us all. But let's do this for once. Some time ago, I had a thought: What's religion's purpose? The easiest, and the most agreed upon, answer I found was that it gives one an 'objective morality' or a purpose which is the extension of that morality. Since there really is no objective morality to be found, we need faith to find this objective morality in us. For me, eating beef is perfectly fine and denying anything made Halal by God is a sin. For a Hindu, on the other hand, eating beef is a sin. Should I call him wrong? Well, if I do, then I'll have to call myself wrong too. After all, we both catalyzed an objective morality for ourselves after having faith. So, the only reason why I should call him wrong, should be found in my morality yet again, that I have to judge him according to my standards and then call him wrong; not call him 'inherently wrong'. Because, in all likelihood, he's not. So, this is what I don't get when people say, ''doing *something* is wrong no matter who you are, where you are''. I think it's a good thing that we've all come to accept that as humans, our collective aim should be 'progression'. In the archaic ages, that was not our aim. 'Humankind', as a term, was almost non-existent and thence, there was no unified objective. But, even then, can we call them wrong? if we do so, we're basically saying that there is an objective morality which is defined by our inter-subjectivity which we all know is marred by our perceptions. Each soul, whether Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Atheist, agnostic or Buddhist, has his/her own definition of a purpose and none are wrong except only when one judges the other according to his own morality. So, maybe we should consider that the next time we call someone wrong for doing something that we deem bad, we must add, ''according to my moral code''. Though, looking at it now, I think that's not entirely necessary. Humans progress when each one of us believes that he/she is in the right unless he/she is proven wrong. If we all start by thinking that I am right but only in my world, that'll be pretty counter-productive. But, then what's the point of my rambling? Well, here: On the bigger scenario, let's say the Palestine/Israel dilemma or America's Jihad, this hypocrisy, of preaching your own objective morality to foreign lands and then calling others 'inherently wrong' and hence liable to murder and bloodshed, often gives birth to catastrophic results. For a more peaceful world, I have found a way, that if only each one of us could understand that what the other guy believes, no matter how archaic, stupid, illogical or barbaric, is by no means wrong by default,and that it is only wrong because it goes against my morals, this world would be a lot more tolerable, conflict-free. Apply that thought to the bigger scene and you get a world no one wages a war lest he be threatened by the existence of someone else. No moral superiority is hence displayed by only one superpower in the world and no one in the world feels that he/she has to proselytize his/her own morality because 'others are wrong'. No, others aren't wrong. But, that doesn't mean you shouldn't proselytize what you believe in, you should because that's the key to our progress. Clash of ideologies or beliefs, on a scholarly level, has always given birth to positive outcomes; that is, they bring us closer to a 'unified aim', where we can all agree on one common ground and whoever ideologue comes in the way of that ground, is deemed wrong by a majority of us. Basically, this thought should be adopted by those who pull the greater strings. In order to reduce conflict and unnecessary bloodshed. Thoughts? |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
| I'm sure if the logic behind what someone says is stupid, for example " I killed my daughter because she was turning into the devil" when there is absolutely no physical or mental evidence towards that then you could fairly say that their opinion is just ignorant and stupid, also a tldr would be nice |
| I've been here way too long... |
hoopla123 said: It's all subjective. /thread. |
 |
TheConquerer said: I'm sure if the logic behind what someone says is stupid, for example " I killed my daughter because she was turning into the devil" when there is absolutely no physical or mental evidence towards that then you could fairly say that their opinion is just ignorant and stupid, also a tldr would be nice No TL;DR for you. You know my policy. Either get over your ADHD and educate yourself or 'ignorance is bliss'. That was the whole point: Physical or mental evidence, or even a scientific evidence, is impertinent when it comes to the things of 'objective morality'. I mean, according to science, killing people endangers the survival of human species. But, science will never tell why survival of human species is even our purpose. That's why we brewed up religions and philosophies to give us a moral ground or a purpose. |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
geniobastardo said: TheConquerer said: I'm sure if the logic behind what someone says is stupid, for example " I killed my daughter because she was turning into the devil" when there is absolutely no physical or mental evidence towards that then you could fairly say that their opinion is just ignorant and stupid, also a tldr would be nice No TL;DR for you. You know my policy. Either get over your ADHD and educate yourself or 'ignorance is bliss'. That was the whole point: Physical or mental evidence, or even a scientific evidence, is impertinent when it comes to the things of 'objective morality'. I mean, according to science, killing people endangers the survival of human species. But, science will never tell why survival of human species is even our purpose. That's why we brewed up religions and philosophies to give us a moral ground or a purpose. Thanks for the tldr, I think your reasoning is false though. Also I'm confused are you saying morality is objective or subjective because it seems you're claiming its subjective in this paragraph. I really can't seem the point at all. Also why do you assume there's a purpose? Do rocks have a purpose? Saying we have a purpose assumes that someone created us with a set reason, and that is something which cannot be proven so an argument is void. |
| I've been here way too long... |
geniobastardo said: For a more peaceful world, I have found a way, that if only each one of us could understand that what the other guy believes, no matter how archaic, stupid, illogical or barbaric, is by no means wrong by default,and that it is only wrong because it goes against my morals, this world would be a lot more tolerable, conflict-free. Apply that thought to the bigger scene and you get a world no one wages a war lest he be threatened by the existence of someone else. No moral superiority is hence displayed by only one superpower in the world and no one in the world feels that he/she has to proselytize his/her own morality because 'others are wrong'. geniobastardo said: Thoughts?  |
 |
TheConquerer said: Thanks for the tldr, I think your reasoning is false though. Also I'm confused are you saying morality is objective or subjective because it seems you're claiming its subjective in this paragraph. I really can't seem the point at all. Also why do you assume there's a purpose? Do rocks have a purpose? Saying we have a purpose assumes that someone created us with a set reason, and that is something which cannot be proven so an argument is void. Is there an inherent objective morality? nope. Is there an objective morality that we can apply to ourselves? yes. Look at it this way, we all have our own ideologies, encompassed by which we make sense of the world around us. A Christian will make sense of the world around him according to Christianity. A Muslim will make sense of the world according to Islam. An Atheist will make sense of this world according to either science or he'll brew up his own philosophy. In the end, we all have our own objective moralities that are objective in our own spheres, not at large and not for others. I'm not saying there is a purpose. What I'm saying is that, a purpose is a necessity. That is why we formed religions or philosophies. Because as long as we don't know the answer to 'why', we do not feel compelled to look for how and what. Either there is some by-default purpose or not is a subject to contention. What we do know is that, humanity, since its inception, has tried to find its own purpose and have always found out that there is no such purpose lest they create their own. Astros said: geniobastardo said: For a more peaceful world, I have found a way, that if only each one of us could understand that what the other guy believes, no matter how archaic, stupid, illogical or barbaric, is by no means wrong by default,and that it is only wrong because it goes against my morals, this world would be a lot more tolerable, conflict-free. Apply that thought to the bigger scene and you get a world no one wages a war lest he be threatened by the existence of someone else. No moral superiority is hence displayed by only one superpower in the world and no one in the world feels that he/she has to proselytize his/her own morality because 'others are wrong'. geniobastardo said: Thoughts? [img]http://m] Do you seriously think I'm believing I can make a better world? ffs why do I have to explain everything. Look, most of us want a conflict-less world. Most of us thus think of ways we can implement to create our own ideal world. Whether we implement them or not depends on a lot of factors. But just because something is unreachable doesn't mean that we should abandon the quest or at least, the thought. Idealism is only foolish when you start putting it into your actions. As long as it remains in the abstract, it only produces positive outcomes. |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
| Morals are subjective but objectively there is some majority agreeing on certain things. However just because the majority believes something to be moral or immoral does not make it true objectively, its still subjective in itself. It would also be using a majority rule which is a fallacy of appeal by numbers. Your idea that people should just take things at face value is fine but its naive you think it would end war or even small scale conflict for that matter. Sure it would reduce it but there are some people who their idea of morality is to just harm others because they only care about themselves. A large part of some peoples moral code is to help stop others suffering so it would be impossible for them to not be involved in other peoples suffering or to protect themselves. Your whole "solution" about things leads you right back to where you started. |
| ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣸⠋⠀⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⡔⠀⢀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⡘⡰⠁⠘⡀⠀⠀⢠⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠁⠀⣀⠀⠀⡇⠀⡜⠈⠁⠀⢸⡈⢇⠀⠀⢣⠑⠢⢄⣇⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢰⡟⡀⠀⡇⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⡇⠈⢆⢰⠁⠀⠀⠀⠘⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠤⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡼⠀⣧⠀⢿⢠⣤⣤⣬⣥⠀⠁⠀⠀⠛⢀⡒⠀⠀⠀⠘⡆⡆⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢵⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡰⠀⢠⠃⠱⣼⡀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⠳⠶⠶⠆⡸⢀⡀⣀⢰⠀⠀⢸ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣀⣀⣀⠄⠀⠉⠁⠀⠀⢠⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⣼⠋⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠴⠢⢄⡔⣕⡍⠣⣱⢸⠀⠀⢷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⡰⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⡜⡨⢢⡀⠀⠀⠀⠐⣄⠀⠀⣠⠀⠀⠀⠐⢛⠽⠗⠁⠀⠁⠊⠀⡜⠸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⢀⠔⣁⡴⠃⠀⡠⡪⠊⣠⣾⣟⣷⡦⠤⣀⡈⠁⠉⢀⣀⡠⢔⠊⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡤⡗⢀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⢀⣠⠴⢑⡨⠊⡀⠤⠚⢉⣴⣾⣿⡿⣾⣿⡇⠀⠹⣻⠛⠉⠉⢀⠠⠺⠀⠀⡀⢄⣴⣾⣧⣞⠀⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠐⠒⣉⠠⠄⡂⠅⠊⠁⠀⠀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣻⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⢠⣷⣮⡍⡠⠔⢉⡇⡠⠋⠁⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ |
| I stopped reading at "Some time ago, I had a thought: What's religion's purpose?" The fuck??! |
traed said: Morals are subjective but objectively there is some majority agreeing on certain things. However just because the majority believes something to be moral or immoral does not make it true objectively, its still subjective in itself. It would also be using a majority rule which is a fallacy of appeal by numbers. Your idea that people should just take things at face value is fine but its naive you think it would end war or even small scale conflict for that matter. Sure it would reduce it but there are some people who their idea of morality is to just harm others because they only care about themselves. A large part of some peoples moral code is to help stop others suffering so it would be impossible for them to not be involved in other peoples suffering or to protect themselves. Your whole "solution" about things leads you right back to where you started. My aim is not to eliminate conflict. Conflict is necessary, we just need to abate it. This is not really a discussion about the subjectivity or the objectivity of morality so I'd rather leave it at that. This is more on the lines of how much we accept or should accept others beliefs. Now, in this world, after centuries of conflicts between ideologies, we have all come to terms on the matter that every religion, government, nation or philosophy, want one thing in common and that is the 'prosperity of humankind'. If one ideology among many goes against that commonality, then we should fight that ideology not because that ideology is by-default wrong (apply subjectivity of morality here) but because it goes against what the majority wants. Mischievous said: I do not see the objective of this subjective objective discussion. It is not that debate. |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
| Why don't you shut the fuck up. |
 |
Solloski said: Why don't you shut the fuck up. Freedom of speech, motherfucker. |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
geniobastardo said: TheConquerer said: Thanks for the tldr, I think your reasoning is false though. Also I'm confused are you saying morality is objective or subjective because it seems you're claiming its subjective in this paragraph. I really can't seem the point at all. Also why do you assume there's a purpose? Do rocks have a purpose? Saying we have a purpose assumes that someone created us with a set reason, and that is something which cannot be proven so an argument is void. Is there an inherent objective morality? nope. Is there an objective morality that we can apply to ourselves? yes. Look at it this way, we all have our own ideologies, encompassed by which we make sense of the world around us. A Christian will make sense of the world around him according to Christianity. A Muslim will make sense of the world according to Islam. An Atheist will make sense of this world according to either science or he'll brew up his own philosophy. In the end, we all have our own objective moralities that are objective in our own spheres, not at large and not for others. I'm not saying there is a purpose. What I'm saying is that, a purpose is a necessity. That is why we formed religions or philosophies. Because as long as we don't know the answer to 'why', we do not feel compelled to look for how and what. Either there is some by-default purpose or not is a subject to contention. What we do know is that, humanity, since its inception, has tried to find its own purpose and have always found out that there is no such purpose lest they create their own. . So you're saying that since there is no objective purpose everyone creates their own purpose which serves as a valid objective purpose for them and them only. That kinda sounds exactly like a subjective purpose though. |
| I've been here way too long... |
geniobastardo said: How else would it be funny? Perhaps because it's your thread and your point that you're trying to explain to the masses of CD. If you don't even have the will to battle with misunderstandings I don't see why you made it in the first place other than to possibly complain CD is beyond help like many others tend to do. Do you seriously think I'm believing I can make a better world? ffs why do I have to explain everything. Look, most of us want a conflict-less world. Most of us thus think of ways we can implement to create our own ideal world. Whether we implement them or not depends on a lot of factors. But just because something is unreachable doesn't mean that we should abandon the quest or at least, the thought. Idealism is only foolish when you start putting it into your actions. As long as it remains in the abstract, it only produces positive outcomes. Depends on who you ask. True, but one persons ideal world may not be the ideal for another. I agree with your point on not abandoning it as you can not know unless you try. Hmm, I would argue against that as if someone goes around killing people, but think they're truly, absolutely helping them in ending their meaningless life of suffering. Then is that really a positive outcome? |
AstrosOct 19, 2015 11:59 AM
|
Astros said: geniobastardo said: How else would it be funny? Perhaps because it's your thread and your point that you're trying to explain to the masses of CD. If you don't even have the will to battle with misunderstandings I don't see why you made it in the first place other than to possibly complain CD is beyond help like many others tend to do. Do you seriously think I'm believing I can make a better world? ffs why do I have to explain everything. Look, most of us want a conflict-less world. Most of us thus think of ways we can implement to create our own ideal world. Whether we implement them or not depends on a lot of factors. But just because something is unreachable doesn't mean that we should abandon the quest or at least, the thought. Idealism is only foolish when you start putting it into your actions. As long as it remains in the abstract, it only produces positive outcomes. Depends on who you ask. True, but one persons ideal world may not be the ideal for another. I agree with your point on not abandoning it as you can not know unless you try. Hmm, I would argue against that as if someone goes around killing people, but thinks they're truly, absolutely helping them in ending their meaningless life of suffering. Then is that really a positive outcome? I have the will to battle with misunderstandings but I do not exactly have the will to battle with what should come as a 'given'. When we devise our plans, we are only hypothesizing. Nothing more, nothing less. Those who laugh on hypothesis, regardless of how retarded the hypothesis might be, should first laugh at themselves. There's the contradiction in your last sentence. Imagine this world turns into a dystopia a few years from now. Imagine we no longer have any food resources and our chances of survival are 0 unless some miracle happens. In that world, the faction that you proposed, that would go around killing people ending their meaningless lives might actually be seen as 'positive'. So, your belief that a faction that goes around killing people is, and shall always be, wrong is wrong in itself because that is yet again, your morals, your understanding of the world. The only reason why you should deem such a faction wrong right now should center around how that faction is going against YOUR belief or the majority's belief. That is the whole point. Read the OP again. |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
| I think the concept that you're trying to accomplish is not 'objective morality', but rather a global secular humanism. |
| The most important things in life is the people that you care about |
Oh boy, I get to use this again: |
azzuRe said: I think the concept that you're trying to accomplish is not 'objective morality', but rather a global secular humanism. Yup. I merely used this 'objective morality' card to reach that. And I'm literally laughing at all the people thinking that it is a thread about objective morality. |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
cause said: geniobastardo said: Freedom of speech, motherfucker. not if you're muslim kappa I have enough murica in me to be free, motherfucker. |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
eeasuper said: the only objective truth in this world is the words written in the Bible. Progression is not the main point of humanity. Humanity's objective is to bring glory to God.  Nice one, man. |
| This topic makes no sense if it's written by a Muslim. You're basically an atheist if you don't think that Allah's moral code is objective, lol. You're denying one of the most basic facts about Islam. |
geniobastardo said: Please, describe to me what is the difference between misunderstandings and "givens". Enlighten me to the objective determiner that separates them.I have the will to battle with misunderstandings but I do not exactly have the will to battle with what should come as a 'given'. When we devise our plans, we are only hypothesizing. Nothing more, nothing less. Those who laugh on hypothesis, regardless of how retarded the hypothesis might be, should first laugh at themselves. geniobastardo said: You entirely missed my point in favor of further elaborating on your already established topic. My point with the last sentence was to argue against this one.There's the contradiction in your last sentence. Imagine this world turns into a dystopia a few years from now. Imagine we no longer have any food resources and our chances of survival are 0 unless some miracle happens. In that world, the faction that you proposed, that would go around killing people ending their meaningless lives might actually be seen as 'positive'. So, your belief that a faction that goes around killing people is, and shall always be, wrong is wrong in itself because that is yet again, your morals, your understanding of the world. The only reason why you should deem such a faction wrong right now should center around how that faction is going against YOUR belief or the majority's belief. That is the whole point. Read the OP again. Idealism is only foolish when you start putting it into your actions. As long as it remains in the abstract, it only produces positive outcomes. |
|
| Here's a topic that's bound to clash with human morality and logic. Say, suppose that it would be announced that the earth is on the brink of death and the only way to save it is to kill off half the worlds population and if not the world would end. |
| Curious is the case of man. He runs towards the world he can never catch, and runs away from death he can never escape. |
I_M_Ali said: Here's a topic that's bound to clash with human morality and logic. Say, suppose that it would be announced that the earth is on the brink of death and the only way to save it is to kill off half the worlds population and if not the world would end. instant nuclear war |
| Truth means, that something is universally valid like 1+1 = 2. Objectivity means, that something is valid for multiple People, who share their Subjectivity, for Example three People looking at a Sky at around the same Time and all describing it as being blue. In my Opinion, the respective religious or non-/irreligious Position can be only objectively seen within the respective Groups who apply the same Norms. There can be some Accordance like believing in a God and in an After Life and having certain Things like Raping, Stealing and Murdering outlawed, however, it would be impossible to prove that exactly one Stance is absolutely right and the others are absolutely wrong. Personally, I'm imagining it like this: Each of us is one small Circle, subjective Morality. To a Degree, we can choose to gather around one or multiple, bigger Circles, made of other, small Circles. Those bigger Circles are objective Morality. Whether one or multiple subjective or respectively: objective Morality/-ies is/are right or wrong is something that can't be known or proved. The easiest Solution outside this Dilemma would be imho if the Truth meant that everyone were right. Meaning someone believing in Reincarnation would do so if the Requirements of what he believes are met and someone who believes in coming to Paradise would do so as well. What we can do to make everything easier would be to try finding common Moralities between most Circles, have the Laws based on them and to make sure that the Law holds absolute Authority while also making sure that abuses will be punished. This however, would only be really feasible if the vast Majority of the Population would agree with them, which is why you should make sure that no one over-reacts if someone doesn't apply to their Moral Codex, but still follows the Law, f.i.: If you're the only Muslim in a predominantly Hindi Society and would butcher a Cow in front of their Eyes or if you are a Christ, who drinks Wine like no Tomorrow during the Daylight on a busy Road in a Muslim-coined Country, it would be much harder to prevent others from not doing something to you even if it were outlawed. So since relying on Laws can never be a Given, it's often wiser to not actively perform Actions that could provoke People into doing Things that could hurt yourself. On the other Hand, it would be desirable if the general Tolerance towards other Circles with different Opinions were at least on a Level in which no one would try to kill someone, because he or she had "sinned" from their Point of View. |
NoboruOct 19, 2015 1:36 PM
| tl;dr: "That's just like you're opinion man" There I just saved everybody 5 minutes, and spared them of attempting to decipher that rambling nonsense. |
 |
| What are the antonyms of succinct and concise? |
 |
| Unfortunately I'm able to understand all the so called rambling. Dud I get what you're trying to say but stating it wouldn't change anything. You forget the fact that humans can be ignorant that includes myself and at the end of the day ignorance is truly Bliss. |
| Curious is the case of man. He runs towards the world he can never catch, and runs away from death he can never escape. |
| Though I agree with OP in his analysis( Mostly, I guess), I disagree with the starting point that there is no objective truth. OP says there is, but only for the person(subjective). To me, it seems quite the opposite. There is absolutely objective truths, but humans believe what we want anyway. Anybody with a brain can step back outside the box and realize there is no god. However, god, and the subsequent religion that stems from God, gives people a purpose, and so there truth is nothing but subjective. Yet, matters such as morality cannot have a "right v wrong" truth. The only objective truth here is that it really doesn't matter and there is no right or wrong because the universe doesn't give a fuck. Obviously this stems differently when you have a belief in a higher power, so naturally everyone who believes in a god on here would simply say what I'm saying her as misguided atheist dogma crap. Either way, I find the argument interesting OP, good thread man. |
khunter said: Inb4 the universe is sentient and does indeed give fucks.The only objective truth here is that it really doesn't matter and there is no right or wrong because the universe doesn't give a fuck. |
|
Noboru said: Truth means, that something is universally valid like 1+1 = 2. Objectivity means, that something is valid for multiple People, who share their Subjectivity, for Example three People looking at a Sky at around the same Time and all describing it as being blue. In my Opinion, the respective religious or non-/irreligious Position can be only objectively seen within the respective Groups who apply the same Norms. There can be some Accordance like believing in a God and in an After Life and having certain Things like Raping, Stealing and Murdering outlawed, however, it would be impossible to prove that exactly one Stance is absolutely right and the others are absolutely wrong. Personally, I'm imagining it like this: Each of us is one small Circle, subjective Morality. To a Degree, we can choose to gather around one or multiple, bigger Circles, made of other, small Circles. Those bigger Circles are objective Morality. Whether one or multiple subjective or respectively: objective Morality/-ies is/are right or wrong is something that can't be known or proved. The easiest Solution outside this Dilemma would be imho if the Truth meant that everyone were right. Meaning someone believing in Reincarnation would do so if the Requirements of what he believes are met and someone who believes in coming to Paradise would do so as well. What we can do to make everything easier would be to try finding common Moralities between most Circles, have the Laws based on them and to make sure that the Law holds absolute Authority while also making sure that abuses will be punished. This however, would only be really feasible if the vast Majority of the Population would agree with them, which is why you should make sure that no one over-reacts if someone doesn't apply to their Moral Codex, but still follows the Law, f.i.: If you're the only Muslim in a predominantly Hindi Society and would butcher a Cow in front of their Eyes or if you are a Christ, who drinks Wine like no Tomorrow during the Daylight on a busy Road in a Muslim-coined Country, it would be much harder to prevent others from not doing something to you even if it were outlawed. So since relying on Laws can never be a Given, it's often wiser to not actively perform Actions that could provoke People into doing Things that could hurt yourself. On the other Hand, it would be desirable if the general Tolerance towards other Circles with different Opinions were at least on a Level in which no one would try to kill someone, because he or she had "sinned" from their Point of View. Are you sure 1+1=2 is universally valid? |
Eponine said: Just because a few People can't perceive it does not make it not true.Are you sure 1+1=2 is universally valid? The Sun is still there even if you can't see her during the Night. That is the Truth. |
Noboru said: Eponine said: Just because a few People can't perceive it does not make it not true.Are you sure 1+1=2 is universally valid? The Sun is still there even if you can't see her during the Night. That is the Truth. For something to be universally valid means that it's accepted (valid) by everyone (universal). I've shown that it's not accepted by everyone. Actually, a mathematical proof of results like 1+1=2 requires a lot of subjective assumptions which not all mathematicians agree with. For example this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choice It basically says that you can split up a pea into two peas of the same size. Some mathematicians don't agree with it. |
Eponine said: No, "universally" means that it is generally valid. A generally valid Statement does not imply that everyone must agree to something or that it can be perceived by everyone.Noboru said: Just because a few People can't perceive it does not make it not true. The Sun is still there even if you can't see her during the Night. That is the Truth. For something to be universally valid means that it's accepted (valid) by everyone (universal). edit: Or you could just define "1" as the first natural Number, "2" as the 2nd natural Number and every natural Number with +1 to the next bigger one. Than 1+ the next bigger one (+1) from the first one, "1" makes it the 2nd one aka "2". |
NoboruOct 20, 2015 12:25 AM
geniobastardo said: What I said still touched on that though. What you describe is pretty much how things already are. The worlds cultures are melding together and because the internet ideas are going all around the world and every country has an influence on others. As long as people are willing to listen their ideas on things may change. If this were taken out extreme enough there would be a middle way between all points that would become the standard. It cant realy be forced to happen though so its not much to think about really.azzuRe said: I think the concept that you're trying to accomplish is not 'objective morality', but rather a global secular humanism. Yup. I merely used this 'objective morality' card to reach that. And I'm literally laughing at all the people thinking that it is a thread about objective morality. |
| ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣸⠋⠀⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⡔⠀⢀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⡘⡰⠁⠘⡀⠀⠀⢠⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠁⠀⣀⠀⠀⡇⠀⡜⠈⠁⠀⢸⡈⢇⠀⠀⢣⠑⠢⢄⣇⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢰⡟⡀⠀⡇⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⡇⠈⢆⢰⠁⠀⠀⠀⠘⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠤⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡼⠀⣧⠀⢿⢠⣤⣤⣬⣥⠀⠁⠀⠀⠛⢀⡒⠀⠀⠀⠘⡆⡆⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢵⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡰⠀⢠⠃⠱⣼⡀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⠳⠶⠶⠆⡸⢀⡀⣀⢰⠀⠀⢸ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣀⣀⣀⠄⠀⠉⠁⠀⠀⢠⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⣼⠋⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠴⠢⢄⡔⣕⡍⠣⣱⢸⠀⠀⢷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⡰⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⡜⡨⢢⡀⠀⠀⠀⠐⣄⠀⠀⣠⠀⠀⠀⠐⢛⠽⠗⠁⠀⠁⠊⠀⡜⠸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⢀⠔⣁⡴⠃⠀⡠⡪⠊⣠⣾⣟⣷⡦⠤⣀⡈⠁⠉⢀⣀⡠⢔⠊⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡤⡗⢀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⢀⣠⠴⢑⡨⠊⡀⠤⠚⢉⣴⣾⣿⡿⣾⣿⡇⠀⠹⣻⠛⠉⠉⢀⠠⠺⠀⠀⡀⢄⣴⣾⣧⣞⠀⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠐⠒⣉⠠⠄⡂⠅⠊⠁⠀⠀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣻⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⢠⣷⣮⡍⡠⠔⢉⡇⡠⠋⠁⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ |
Astros said: khunter said: Inb4 the universe is sentient and does indeed give fucks.The only objective truth here is that it really doesn't matter and there is no right or wrong because the universe doesn't give a fuck. Get off my dick Asstros |
| Idealism is depressing. I agree that for the majority of people, accepting other peoples "objective morals" is beneficial for everyone and can even better society if everyone communicated more. Cultural diversity should work, and even though it hasn't I'd still say it's a good thing. Example Ideally a Muslim community would integrate into society and feel fine anywhere, mixing what they can and can't do in secular societies according to their objective morals. And those Muslims that do abuse their objective morals wouldn't be protected simply because of their religion. It gets to the point where there's no point in dicscussing issues with Muslims because those Muslims that do enjoy secular society end up getting defensive and offended, when in theory they should be against those extremist views and forcing of objective morals the society is attacking. The only reason it works reasonably well with Christianity is because it's core tenets like love your neighbour and don't judge have been wanted to be upheld by pretty much everyone. Christians that are being judgemental are usually seen as hypocrites by other Christians therefore they gain very little support and friendship in society. My idealism is that all religions can turn out like this one day. |
Trance said: I'm a guy and I can imagine buttfucking another guy. I don't find the thought repulsive, and I can even imagine kissing another man. |
khunter said: Clever.Get off my dick Asstros |
|
Astros said: khunter said: Clever.Get off my dick Asstros Arigatou. |
Astros said: Please, describe to me what is the difference between misunderstandings and "givens". Enlighten me to the objective determiner that separates them. Hypothesis are meant to be tested and analyzed, not to be laughed at. That's a given. Now, for the misunderstanding: Astros said: You entirely missed my point in favor of further elaborating on your already established topic. My point with the last sentence was to argue against this one. Idealism is only foolish when you start putting it into your actions. As long as it remains in the abstract, it only produces positive outcomes. Here's a misunderstanding, my misunderstanding. I get what you're trying to say but you'll have to pry deeper in the meaning of my statement. This is yet again an observation: We're all familiar with Hitler's ideal world. We're all familiar also with Gengis' ideal world. You said so yourself that one man's ideal world might not be another man's. Now, here's what I meant by saying that idealism should remain in thoughts only and should only be put into action when it's passed the consensus of the majority. Let's posit that during Hitler's time, Hitler shared his ideas of an ideal world with his contemporaries from around the globe; they all accepted it. The people, let's suppose, really did deem his ideal world an ideal world for all. That way, we would have reached a consensus on one 'ideal world' and that was through the sharing of our thoughts. But, what actually happened in reality, was different. Hitler didn't try to convince his contemporaries about the logic of his ideal world (Well, neither could he) and instead jumped straight to putting it into action. He skipped the stage where we had to reach a consensus and then he also skipped the stage where we all, then, had to work towards that one common goal. Sometime later after his death, UNO established. Disregarding the severe inefficiencies committed by that organization, let me say that that organization was founded on the principle that I'm proposing: Sharing of ideals and then reaching an agreement on specific terms. The world, now, would not allow one man to put his idealism into actions neither should it. For example, if Kim Jong Un wants his dictatorship over the Asian region, then he would have to have the approval of the majority in order to smoothly put his ideals into actions. That was my point. traed said: What I said still touched on that though. What you describe is pretty much how things already are. The worlds cultures are melding together and because the internet ideas are going all around the world and every country has an influence on others. As long as people are willing to listen their ideas on things may change. If this were taken out extreme enough there would be a middle way between all points that would become the standard. It cant realy be forced to happen though so its not much to think about really. No, the world is not entirely like that. Ask USA why it supports Israel. And the answer you'll get is that, ''Israel share our ideals''. USA has often purported in the past that its campaigns in Afghanistan and the Middle East at large were fueled by their moral superiority; in other words, USA is the superpower and it thinks, or at least pretends to, that it is morally superior and hence has the wild card to wage as many wars as it can. Without going into details, let me also shove the Israel/Palestine problem under the same banner where both parties, Muslims and Jews, are basking in their own self-proclaimed moral superiority; that the Jews think Torah is the one truth (they have the right to) and no other religion shall exist (for this they own no rights) and the Muslims think they were entitled to Jerusalem because Umar conquered it. This entitlement is a characteristic and one of the root causes of the many problems that exist today. Sure, the solution I'm proposing is too abstract and I don't exactly hope that we can solve world problems this way. But, what I do want is this mentality where you are entitled to your moral superiority in your own mind only, not at large. Every man lives with his own reasons, every man makes his own sense of the world, let him do that. |
geniobastardoOct 20, 2015 12:46 AM
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
Noboru said: Truth means, that something is universally valid like 1+1 = 2. Objectivity means, that something is valid for multiple People, who share their Subjectivity, for Example three People looking at a Sky at around the same Time and all describing it as being blue. In my Opinion, the respective religious or non-/irreligious Position can be only objectively seen within the respective Groups who apply the same Norms. There can be some Accordance like believing in a God and in an After Life and having certain Things like Raping, Stealing and Murdering outlawed, however, it would be impossible to prove that exactly one Stance is absolutely right and the others are absolutely wrong. Personally, I'm imagining it like this: Each of us is one small Circle, subjective Morality. To a Degree, we can choose to gather around one or multiple, bigger Circles, made of other, small Circles. Those bigger Circles are objective Morality. Whether one or multiple subjective or respectively: objective Morality/-ies is/are right or wrong is something that can't be known or proved. The easiest Solution outside this Dilemma would be imho if the Truth meant that everyone were right. Meaning someone believing in Reincarnation would do so if the Requirements of what he believes are met and someone who believes in coming to Paradise would do so as well. What we can do to make everything easier would be to try finding common Moralities between most Circles, have the Laws based on them and to make sure that the Law holds absolute Authority while also making sure that abuses will be punished. This however, would only be really feasible if the vast Majority of the Population would agree with them, which is why you should make sure that no one over-reacts if someone doesn't apply to their Moral Codex, but still follows the Law, f.i.: If you're the only Muslim in a predominantly Hindi Society and would butcher a Cow in front of their Eyes or if you are a Christ, who drinks Wine like no Tomorrow during the Daylight on a busy Road in a Muslim-coined Country, it would be much harder to prevent others from not doing something to you even if it were outlawed. So since relying on Laws can never be a Given, it's often wiser to not actively perform Actions that could provoke People into doing Things that could hurt yourself. On the other Hand, it would be desirable if the general Tolerance towards other Circles with different Opinions were at least on a Level in which no one would try to kill someone, because he or she had "sinned" from their Point of View. Interesting post. Unfortunately, my mind is too muddled up right now (just came back from School) so I'll read it more in-depth later. Eponine said: This topic makes no sense if it's written by a Muslim. You're basically an atheist if you don't think that Allah's moral code is objective, lol. You're denying one of the most basic facts about Islam. Are you a Muslim? |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
Bernkastel said: 1. How is this objective at all? Objective morality ought be followed in all contexts. If someone does something immoral, they are wrong, end of story. No two contradicting objective moral code can coexist - this inevitably means that if you accept morality is objective, at most one belief system is right, and perhaps none of them are right. I'm treading on the latter theory: none of them are right, speaking inter-subjectively. I made it clear that an 'objective morality' can exist only in one's own moral sphere. There is no one true Moral Constitution that we all would have to condone and all our subjective moralities would have to agree with. Let me explain this through Plato's theory of forms that he attributes the abstract to another immaterial world. That the moral code of that immaterial world is the one true Moral Constitution. So, here's my rejection of his theory: I don't accept that there is such a constitution even though I am a Muslim myself. So, what am I getting at? I'm pointing towards a consensus. There are a few things upon which all religions, philosophies, ideologies, and moral codes, agree with. Such as murder for an instance. Each ideology deems it bad. There's a universal consensus on that. Now, we can, then, form our own 'Moral Constitution' or a 'Universal Morality' based on the consensus among us. That is the closest we can get to a true 'Objective Morality'. And hence, the onus is on us to follow that Universal Morality in all contexts. 2. What is the source of these moral codes? For the examples you listed (all of which are religions) the source is their respective gods. Even if two beliefs don't contradict thus don't violate point 1, you still simply cannot accept them both to be objective morality unless you consider many gods from different religions to be on the same level of authority. From my understanding, this is explicitly disallowed in every religion, because it inevitably means your god is not THE god and the path you follow is not the only truth. All belief systems that allow someone to consider other different positions in morality are all philosophies under subjective morality category. We aren't accepting any one religion as the objective morality. We're accepting the complement of the two sets of morality, as the objective morality. This might be explicitly disallowed in every religion, but I'm looking at it as a 'human' not a 'Muslim'. On a global scale, a Muslim will not accept the principles of a Christian with which he doesn't agree with already. Let's say that our agreements on a few universal moralities is contingent, let's say we got lucky. So, let's take advantage of this coincidence and find as many things we can all, or at least a majority of us, can agree upon and thus draw a 'Universal Moral Constitution'. |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
Bernkastel said: This is what's confusing to me... You claim about objective reality, but your entire argument is actually identical to the philosophy called normative moral relativism. In other words, this thread doesn't actually tell people what objective morality is, it rejects moral objectivism in favor of relativism. I'm not claiming objective morality. You might have seen this term in the title but what I'm actually debating about is condensed in the last paragraph. Read my reply to Astros and traed above. I'm trying to hypothesize how we can utilize relativism to reduce conflicts on a global scale. Bernkastel said: I think there is a problem with not accepting a religion as morally objective if you are a theist. The issue arises that I can literally go against 99% of things in the Bible and still claim I am an ethical Christian. That idea is nonsensical. I do accept my religion to be the only truth. But when God said so himself in the Quran that, ''For each one of you is a set course'', I can't do anything other than go around trying to 'convince' people that my religion is actually the truth. What Quran guides me towards is an understanding that my religion is for me and I can only ever try to persuade others and do nothing more than that. It says that it is the only truth, but it doesn't use that logic to force me to go around and kill everyone on this Earth. Because other religions exist due to God's will too. "And you cannot will anything except for what God wills". (Surah-al-Takwir) I can believe that my faith is true. But that doesn't grant me the right to banish the existence of other religions. Islam is too different from Christianity on this one. |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
| Peace cannot kept by bla bla bla, the only way is to understanding - Albert Einstein Yea yea OP, i agree that understanding is the key for peace. That's why i like christianity moral more than any other religion on this planet. Love your enemy, jesus said. That's so fuckin badass and all, you know. But then again OP, you cannot force anyone else to follow the way you're thinking. Some people just couldn't understand, some people doesn't want to understand, and some people though they're understand but their objective are different thus makes the understanding meaningless. In the end hoopla123 said: It's all subjective. /thread. |
Noboru said: The Sun is still there even if you can't see her during the Night. That is the Truth. Nope. http://www.gizmag.com/quantum-theory-reality-anu/37866/ Unless you see or recognize the sun, the sun would never become reality in your world |
More topics from this board
» It's interesting how our perception of who's a hero and who's a villain has changed.NotYourLittleSis - 8 hours ago |
5 |
by traed
»»
8 minutes ago |
|
» What do you think of men who act like it's manly to disregard their health or well-being? ( 1 2 )fleurbleue - Yesterday |
54 |
by Zarutaku
»»
9 minutes ago |
|
» School, Careers and Jobs are stupid and a waste of timeAllAlone8 - 43 minutes ago |
1 |
by XMGA030
»»
11 minutes ago |
|
» if you were to given a chance to become either a magical girl or kamen riderYmir_The_Viking - Yesterday |
17 |
by Zarutaku
»»
14 minutes ago |
|
» Are You Dressing Up For Halloween? What Would/Will Be Your Halloween Costume?PeripheralVision - Oct 13 |
7 |
by XMGA030
»»
1 hour ago |