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

The Sandy Hook shooting: objectively wrong or subjectively wrong?

#31C_Mat(Topic Creator)Posted 12/20/2012 6:11:20 AM
Billy Bob Joe posted...
I'm sure God is proud of you appropriating a tragedy for the purpose of furthering a theological argument, C_Mat. Very Christlike.


Actually, there was one time that Jesus specifically used a tragedy (where 18 people died) to illustrate a theological point in Luke, chapter 13. So it actually is Christlike, thank you.

Look, I'm not using a tragedy to say "haha, I was right," I'm trying to get you guys to see that you all actually believe in objective moral truths whether you deny it or not. There are way more important implications of that (for you) than "C_Mat is right."

BashyMcFetus posted...
Where do you derive your morality from, then?


From God. I don't know why you're bringing mine up, though, since if you can't defend your view of morality without attacking mine, it's safe to say that your view is indefensible and wrong. And thus far you haven't provided any defense for subjective morality because, like all sane people, you believe that it's absolutely wrong to murder schoolchildren regardless of any person or society's personal beliefs about it.

Conversely, the universal rulebook can say that murdering innocent children is always right and humans can then disagree.


It could. But it doesn't. But if the Universal Rulebook existed and it does allow that, then the universe would be have to be ordered in a way that murdering children was beneficial to human flourishing. But that's a game of "what if," not "what is." Even if you could come up with a separate universe where it was alright to do terrible things like kill kids, it would still do nothing to tear down my point of view nor defend your own.

Faust_8 posted...
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.


I gave you an answer, I don't see how it's obtuse. It was actually pretty straightforward, the only way I can see you "misunderstanding" it is if you literally don't want to admit the truth we all believe.
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#32xellos_pyPosted 12/20/2012 6:34:21 AM
Subjectively wrong in the sense that morality is a human construct and not an universal rule.
However I find discussing this when applying it to an specific event is really pointless.
---
http://myanimelist.net/profile/Xellos88
http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z192/xellos_py/littlehero.jpg
#33ThuggernautzPosted 12/20/2012 8:13:46 AM
C_Mat posted...

It could. But it doesn't. But if the Universal Rulebook existed and it does allow that, then the universe would be have to be ordered in a way that murdering children was beneficial to human flourishing. But that's a game of "what if," not "what is." Even if you could come up with a separate universe where it was alright to do terrible things like kill kids, it would still do nothing to tear down my point of view nor defend your own.


Nope, instead it instructs you not to eat shellfish, what clothes to wear, how to treat your slaves and how much to sell your daughters for. Oh, but then all the rules changed arbitrarily and so now you don't have to follow any of those silly old "objective" rules any more; except for the ones that don't impact your everyday life so much. Oh, and also every single rule written in there can be suspended if Mr. Tyranny in the cosmic sky demands it, even killing your own family. Yup, much more solid set of standards...
#34BashyMcFetusPosted 12/20/2012 8:32:23 AM
C_Mat posted...
I don't know why you're bringing mine up, though, since if you can't defend your view of morality without attacking mine, it's safe to say that your view is indefensible and wrong.

That doesn't follow.

And thus far you haven't provided any defense for subjective morality because, like all sane people, you believe that it's absolutely wrong to murder schoolchildren regardless of any person or society's personal beliefs about it.

Funny, when your god is doing the murdering, you're very quick to defend him.

But if the Universal Rulebook existed and it does allow that, then the universe would be have to be ordered in a way that murdering children was beneficial to human flourishing.

Not necessarily. The fact that the rule harms us doesn't mean it doesn't exist and we don't just ignore it. "Allow humanity to flourish" is a subjective basis, after all.

But that's a game of "what if," not "what is." Even if you could come up with a separate universe where it was alright to do terrible things like kill kids, it would still do nothing to tear down my point of view nor defend your own.

That would, by definition, tear down your point of view. If killing schoolchildren is objectively wrong, it has to be wrong in every circumstance. If it's sometimes the right thing to do, then it isn't objectively wrong.
---
By Evolution, I mean Evolution. As in "I look different from my parents because of evolution" ~OrangeWizard
#35C_Mat(Topic Creator)Posted 12/20/2012 9:52:38 AM
BashyMcFetus posted...
That doesn't follow.


I wasn't making an argument, it's just my assumption that you keep proving.

Funny, when your god is doing the murdering, you're very quick to defend him.


Oh look, attacking my moral standards instead of defending yours, again.

Not necessarily. The fact that the rule harms us doesn't mean it doesn't exist and we don't just ignore it. "Allow humanity to flourish" is a subjective basis, after all.


I got the human flourishing idea from evolution, I was trying to speak to you on your level. I don't think it's subjective that unguided evolution's intent is to propagate a species.

That would, by definition, tear down your point of view. If killing schoolchildren is objectively wrong, it has to be wrong in every circumstance. If it's sometimes the right thing to do, then it isn't objectively wrong.


Nope, all I have to do is place the addendum "within our universe" to the end of the topic title and the question stays the same.
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#36ThuggernautzPosted 12/20/2012 9:59:55 AM(edited)
C_Mat posted...

I got the human flourishing idea from evolution, I was trying to speak to you on your level. I don't think it's subjective that unguided evolution's intent is to propagate a species.


Evolution has no intent. Do not anthropomorphise what is simply a natural event.
#37fudrickPosted 12/20/2012 10:28:42 AM
I honestly don't think objective morality is actually something that could exist. Everything that's referred to as objective morality is just a rebranding of subjective morality. Morality is not math, it is inherently subjective.

What you're really asking is, "do you think that murdering children would always be wrong in any context?" And I'm sure we'd all say yes. This is still our subjective morality being applied to different contextual situations, though. Without humans, there would be no humans to murder and be murdered by each other, so that act wouldn't even exist to be judged by this supposed "objective morality" and while humans do exist, that judgment will always be subjective.
---
Best FCs:
GH1: Decontrol | GH2: Jordan, Hangar 18 | GH80s: Because It's Midnite | GH3: One, Soothsayer | RB2: I Ain't Superstitious
#38Faust_8Posted 12/20/2012 12:54:37 PM
I gave you an answer, I don't see how it's obtuse. It was actually pretty straightforward, the only way I can see you "misunderstanding" it is if you literally don't want to admit the truth we all believe.

It's a ridiculous answer, plain and simple. If it was even possible to justify it in a secular way, at all, then maybe it would carry some weight.

But you can't. There is not a single subjective morality viewpoint that would approve of it--not evolutionary psychology, not functionalism, not anything else.

That's why I say it's obtuse--even if you tried to come up with a hypothetical, I or anyone else with half a brain could shoot it down. You just grasped at a straw, the same as someone saying that allowing same-sex marriage means bestiality comes next.

Secondly...how is this different from a god who apparently changes morality on a whim? Your god says its wrong to kill and then kills himself or commands others to kill. How is that not even more arbitrary and more subject to radical changes?

Not to mention that some prominent theists literally say anything God commands is moral. So if God commands you to slaughter babies, it is moral. But this is ok, and your (ridiculous, inconceivable) assertion is not? There is no stopping a command from God...but there are many obstacles in the way of "oh we just decided by committee that murder is ok now." Your morality is dependent on a whim, mine only slowly evolves over time by the consensus of everyone.

You're on the shaky ground here, not me.

Plus even if you're right...it makes no difference and we can't even know. The entire world acts as though I'm right. Every culture has their own morality, every culture's morality has changed over time, and even self-professed theists, who believe in a personal god who judges their actions based on written edicts, still commit crimes and "sin" as if that wasn't true. If you were right, wouldn't the world be different? And if you are right, how could we tell?
---
The supernatural says that if you act a certain way you might avoid suffering. But reality says you came from the stars...
#39Mike_StantonPosted 12/20/2012 2:20:26 PM
The fact that you even want there to be objective morality implies that there's secular reasons for morality. If there's no good reasons to have morals outside of God then why not live your life without morality instead of allowing that to convince you that there's a god?
---
RIP Butters_1188 2005-2009
Prove me wrong
#40BashyMcFetusPosted 12/20/2012 3:28:24 PM
C_Mat posted...
Oh look, attacking my moral standards instead of defending yours, again.

Attacking yours is defending mine. You use subjective morality, which is what I'm trying to show you, but you just keep ignoring it.. Your god did things which you consider wrong plenty of times in the past, but you defend it. You can only do that when you have subjective morality.

I got the human flourishing idea from evolution, I was trying to speak to you on your level. I don't think it's subjective that unguided evolution's intent is to propagate a species.

Evolution isn't a sentient process. It doesn't have a goal. It just does. "Allow humanity to flourish", which is what your morality seems to be based on, is a subjective basis.

Nope, all I have to do is place the addendum "within our universe" to the end of the topic title and the question stays the same.

This universe is just a particular set of circumstances. If you agree that there are some circumstances where child murder could be the right thing to do, then you either have to show that such circumstances are impossible, or you have to agree that morality is subjective. I mean, really what you're doing here is saying "Hypotheticals don't count, because I say so".
---
By Evolution, I mean Evolution. As in "I look different from my parents because of evolution" ~OrangeWizard