This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

The Sandy Hook shooting: objectively wrong or subjectively wrong?

#1C_MatPosted 12/18/2012 7:17:14 PM
Do you believe that it is objectively or subjectively morally wrong to shoot and kill 18 innocent children? - Results (140 votes)
I believe it is subjectively wrong based on my personal beliefs and/or my society's values.
37.86% (53 votes)
53
I believe it is objectively wrong regardless of a person's personal beliefs or the values of their society.
62.14% (87 votes)
87
This poll is now closed.
nt
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#2AdmiralBisonPosted 12/18/2012 7:49:56 PM
I believe it's subjectively on my and I take if, going by the anguish of the surrounding community and the nation as a whole as subjectively wrong.
---
If delusions and Illusions are an en-escapable part of our entire lives, why not just pick a positive one?
#3Julian_CaesarPosted 12/18/2012 7:53:42 PM
What if it's like that scene in Zombieland, that I can't find anywhere on Youtube?
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.
#4DagorhaPosted 12/18/2012 8:31:03 PM
Objectively Wrong.

Not because of God but because taking the life of children to satisfy some measure of revenge is wrong in of itself.
---
You don't get a gold star for being less bloody stupid than another bloody stupid person when you are still demonstrably bloody stupid. -the final bahamut
#5Hustle KongPosted 12/18/2012 8:34:16 PM
Option #3 - I view the conflict of "subjective" and "objective" morality to be pretty useless.
---
Shooting Game never die.
It prays that the clover of luck be always in your mind.
#6Polish_CrusaderPosted 12/18/2012 9:46:57 PM
Hustle Kong posted...
Option #3 - I view the conflict of "subjective" and "objective" morality to be pretty useless.


^ win.
#7LinkFanaticPosted 12/18/2012 9:52:15 PM
Hustle Kong posted...
Option #3 - I view the conflict of "subjective" and "objective" morality to be pretty useless.


I agree with this.
---
SSJ Gotenks is santa clause, because he can fly around the planet in one night. - ShaolinAced
#8LinkFanaticPosted 12/18/2012 9:52:37 PM
Dagorha posted...
Objectively Wrong.

Not because of God but because taking the life of children to satisfy some measure of revenge is wrong in of itself.


That's still decidedly subjective.
---
SSJ Gotenks is santa clause, because he can fly around the planet in one night. - ShaolinAced
#9JonWood007Posted 12/18/2012 11:02:07 PM(edited)
Why not both?

Murder, IMO, is both objectively and subjectively wrong. Murder is one of those things that you'll find a prohibition against in every society. There may be debates in how it's enforced....in some cases like wars, executions, and even genocides, some societies may deem it okay. But all societies will ban murder to some extent. Why? Functionalism. Society cannot FUNCTION if you allow murder. The point of coming together and forming a society is first and foremost to increase our chances of survival. Of course, there's no big man in the sky (IMO) telling you what is objectively morally correct, this is up to us to decide, and is therefore subjective, but as I mentioned, it's objective too because it's probably one of the most important rules for societies to have, and society cannot function if murder is not prohibited, at least to a degree. Therefore, it's also objectively wrong.

Or, if you wanna put it another way, I'll go with what is said above, the whole objective vs subjective thing is pointless.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 4 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HD | W7 | 1366x768
#10Faust_8Posted 12/18/2012 11:22:52 PM
JonWood007 posted...
Why not both?

Murder, IMO, is both objectively and subjectively wrong. Murder is one of those things that you'll find a prohibition against in every society. There may be debates in how it's enforced....in some cases like wars, executions, and even genocides, some societies may deem it okay. But all societies will ban murder to some extent. Why? Functionalism. Society cannot FUNCTION if you allow murder. The point of coming together and forming a society is first and foremost to increase our chances of survival. Of course, there's no big man in the sky (IMO) telling you what is objectively morally correct, this is up to us to decide, and is therefore subjective, but as I mentioned, it's objective too because it's probably one of the most important rules for societies to have, and society cannot function if murder is not prohibited, at least to a degree. Therefore, it's also objectively wrong.

Or, if you wanna put it another way, I'll go with what is said above, the whole objective vs subjective thing is pointless.


A 100% acceptance rate does not promote subjective to objective--that's not what it's about. Popularity of a moral rule is irrelevant to whether it's objective or subjective.

It's subjective if arrived at the conclusion ourselves. It's objective if some god or the very fabric of the universe laid it down as a law. That's what most people think of when they say subjective or objective.

To me, arguing for the immorality of murder with functionalism is an excellent way to argue that it's purely subjective. If it's objective, there doesn't even need to be a reason, and there would be no exceptions either.
---
The supernatural says that if you act a certain way you might avoid suffering. But reality says you came from the stars...