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

The Sandy Hook shooting: objectively wrong or subjectively wrong?

#21C_Mat(Topic Creator)Posted 12/19/2012 8:57:56 PM
Faust_8 posted...
kozlo100 posted...
What HK said.

Also, classy C_Mat. Very classy.


Yeah, the insensitivity wasn't lost on me either. You don't REALLY think we don't see how you're using a recent, heart-wrending tragedy into guilt-tripping us into answering objectively do you C_Mat? This is still fresh in our minds, so you think "oh they won't answer subjectively because that seems more heartless."

Are you really this low? If you need to resort to underhanded tactics, what does that say about your position?

Don't EVEN try to deny it. Don't shame yourself further you cruel little opportunist.

They need to replace all the lawyer jokes with Christian ones if C_Mat is any indication. "Oh people died? What a wonderful time to tell you why I'm correct."


I posted this topic outside of North American society and I have alternative personal beliefs about what is insensitive. Therefore you have no authority to call me cruel or low.

And if this topic emotionally distresses you, I do apologize and please don't feel like you need to respond or look at this topic anymore. Put me on ignore, even. But if you posted this because you just can't be mature enough to discuss what your views of morality mean in light of current events and reality, then again, please leave.

By the way, the reason you shouldn't select the subjective answer isn't because it seems more heartless, it's because it is more heartless.
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#22BashyMcFetusPosted 12/19/2012 9:21:41 PM
C_Mat posted...
I posted this topic outside of North American society and I have alternative personal beliefs about what is insensitive. Therefore you have no authority to call me cruel or low.

Sure we do. Maybe not everyone agrees that you're a douche, but by the standards of most people in the western world and this board, you're a douche.

C_Mat posted...
By the way, the reason you shouldn't select the subjective answer isn't because it seems more heartless, it's because it is more heartless.

How is "I think murder is wrong for personal reasons" more heartless than "I think murder is wrong because god says so".
---
By Evolution, I mean Evolution. As in "I look different from my parents because of evolution" ~OrangeWizard
#23C_Mat(Topic Creator)Posted 12/19/2012 9:35:47 PM
BashyMcFetus posted...
Sure we do. Maybe not everyone agrees that you're a douche, but by the standards of most people in the western world and this board, you're a douche.


Perhaps the joke was lost on you...never mind.

How is "I think murder is wrong for personal reasons" more heartless than "I think murder is wrong because god says so".


Who said anything about God?
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#24kozlo100Posted 12/19/2012 9:45:21 PM
C_Mat posted...
Perhaps the joke was lost on you...never mind.


You executed it wrong.

In the context of subjective morality, he has every right to call you those things, and you've nothing to counter him with except simple disagreement. It is only in the context of objective morality that you could prove him wrong, and thus claim he has no right to make those assertions.
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#25Faust_8Posted 12/19/2012 9:47:29 PM
I am also failing to see how human-constructed morality is more heartless than just unquestioningly obeying some rule written in the Universal Rule Book.
---
The supernatural says that if you act a certain way you might avoid suffering. But reality says you came from the stars...
#26C_Mat(Topic Creator)Posted 12/19/2012 9:52:54 PM
Faust_8 posted...
I am also failing to see how human-constructed morality is more heartless than just unquestioningly obeying some rule written in the Universal Rule Book.


Because human can construct their own morality to say that murdering innocent children is alright, while a Universal Rule can say that murdering innocent children is wrong regardless of what a human thinks about it. How do you fail to see that?
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#27DagorhaPosted 12/19/2012 10:28:59 PM
LinkFanatic posted...
Dagorha posted...
LinkFanatic posted...
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.


how do you figure?


Because there's no reason to think that revenge is objectively wrong, regardless of context.


Plenty of reasons

Aristotelian Argument: It goes against some virtue

Utilitarian Argument: By acting in revenge he has greatly reduced the amount of happiness in the world

Kantian Reason: The desire for revenge extending as far as murdering children can not be willed upon others thus it can't be a universal law and immoral

Ethical Egoist: It is against my self interest to see others murder people

Divine Command Theory: God said don't murder so don't do it

pick one. Most of them are clearly objective morality systems
---
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
#28BashyMcFetusPosted 12/19/2012 10:50:35 PM
C_Mat posted...
Perhaps the joke was lost on you...never mind.

I got the "joke". It just sucked.

Who said anything about God?

Where do you derive your morality from, then?

C_Mat posted...
Because human can construct their own morality to say that murdering innocent children is alright, while a Universal Rule can say that murdering innocent children is wrong regardless of what a human thinks about it. How do you fail to see that?

Conversely, the universal rulebook can say that murdering innocent children is always right and humans can then disagree.
---
By Evolution, I mean Evolution. As in "I look different from my parents because of evolution" ~OrangeWizard
#29Billy Bob JoePosted 12/20/2012 12:44:29 AM
I'm sure God is proud of you appropriating a tragedy for the purpose of furthering a theological argument, C_Mat. Very Christlike.
---
Because ghosts are just trying to keep a brother down. Check your undead privilege ecto-scum. -Loshadt
IT'S LIKE HIS FACE IS LEAKING OUR FREEDOM -JohnnyTHM1212
#30Faust_8Posted 12/20/2012 3:33:35 AM
C_Mat posted...
Faust_8 posted...
I am also failing to see how human-constructed morality is more heartless than just unquestioningly obeying some rule written in the Universal Rule Book.


Because human can construct their own morality to say that murdering innocent children is alright, while a Universal Rule can say that murdering innocent children is wrong regardless of what a human thinks about it. How do you fail to see that?


Congrats for deliberately being obtuse. That's akin to those idiots who argue against gay marriage because that means we'll be able to marry rocks and dogs if we want to.
---
The supernatural says that if you act a certain way you might avoid suffering. But reality says you came from the stars...