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

The Sandy Hook shooting: objectively wrong or subjectively wrong?

#51SystemafunkPosted 12/21/2012 1:23:46 PM
Yes it does. If we cannot assume the physical world is objective, then all our attempts to codify and understand it are in vain.
#52SystemafunkPosted 12/21/2012 1:25:29 PM
And you are only taking that position to self justify your other position. Like it or not, logic is assumed to be objective. The only logical conclusion is that if the physical world is not objective, then it is not logical, and therefore pointless to discus or try to make any sense out of it. The same goes for morality.

I'm not the one with a self consistency problem.
#53lastheroPosted 12/21/2012 1:36:50 PM
Yes it does. If we cannot assume the physical world is objective, then all our attempts to codify and understand it are in vain.


Not really. It helps increase our understanding of things. I don't think we'll ever reach a perfect understanding, but I also don't think that's point of learning and codifying things.

And you are only taking that position to self justify your other position.


What other position? I don't think I've actually stated my other position, and I'm sure you don't know what reason I would have for taking it.

The only logical conclusion is that if the physical world is not objective, then it is not logical, and therefore pointless to discus or try to make any sense out of it. The same goes for morality.


I would actually say it is pointless to try and make sense out of morality. Really, let's say I accept all your arguments, everything, all of it; there is a God, he has a definitive moral law, morality is completely objective.

That doesn't change anything. It doesn't improve my life, or anyone's. It doesn't mean I'm going to accept the Bible or any religion, because that argument could just as well apply to any God, known or unknown. What difference does it make?
---
X-Men: First Class RPG - Welcoming all new players!
[http://s1.zetaboards.com/New_Mutants/index/]
#54SystemafunkPosted 12/21/2012 1:42:15 PM
Not really. It helps increase our understanding of things. I don't think we'll ever reach a perfect understanding, but I also don't think that's point of learning and codifying things.

Implying what? That there is an objective direction underlying it? That a perfect understanding, however unreachable for us in reality, actually exists out there? That sounds like objectiveness. Which, if it doesn't actually exist, means there is no such thing as "increasing our understanding of things" at all.


And you are only taking that position to self justify your other position.

What other position? I don't think I've actually stated my other position, and I'm sure you don't know what reason I would have for taking it.


I apologize then. I jumped into this discussion without reading the whole topic. I assumed you were arguing that one does not need objective morality to have something worthwhile.


The only logical conclusion is that if the physical world is not objective, then it is not logical, and therefore pointless to discus or try to make any sense out of it. The same goes for morality.

I would actually say it is pointless to try and make sense out of morality. Really, let's say I accept all your arguments, everything, all of it; there is a God, he has a definitive moral law, morality is completely objective.

That doesn't change anything. It doesn't improve my life, or anyone's. It doesn't mean I'm going to accept the Bible or any religion, because that argument could just as well apply to any God, known or unknown. What difference does it make?


Your view that it doesn't matter is based off of your actual real life view that there is no objective morality. If you truly believed that morality, and thus value, was objective, you would easily see why it was more VALUABLE for any person or any group to work to understand it and why it would improve their life.
#55lastheroPosted 12/21/2012 2:17:02 PM(edited)
Implying what? That there is an objective direction underlying it? That a perfect understanding, however unreachable for us in reality, actually exists out there? That sounds like objectiveness. Which, if it doesn't actually exist, means there is no such thing as "increasing our understanding of things" at all.


True, I suppose. Though, again, it doesn't really make much difference, either way. The world is what it is, and it is that way despite what your opinion is.


Your view that it doesn't matter is based off of your actual real life view that there is no objective morality. If you truly believed that morality, and thus value, was objective, you would easily see why it was more VALUABLE for any person or any group to work to understand it and why it would improve their life.


Okay, let's roll with that. I'm an atheist, I don't believe in God. I'm a nice guy, I pay my taxes, I'm generally moral all around. One day, I find God. What changes?

Or, conversely, we have a guy who does believe there is a God and that there is some objective morality, but he's long since departed from it. He's a crook, a liar, a thief. One day he stops believing in God. What changes?

Can belief in God give people impetus to change their ways? Yes. But so can a lot of things, really. All I'm saying is that saying there's an objective morality doesn't actually solve the problem of morality. As long as the view on God is subjective, we come right back to it.

Morality with God is basically the same thing as morality without God. We face the same arguments, the same problems, the only real difference is that we now believe that the creator of the universe is backing up our respective sides. Even if I believe morality is objective, my belief on what the objective morality says is STILL subjective. It gets us nowhere.
---
X-Men: First Class RPG - Welcoming all new players!
[http://s1.zetaboards.com/New_Mutants/index/]
#56SystemafunkPosted 12/21/2012 2:18:04 PM
True, I suppose. Though, again, it doesn't really make much difference, either way. The world is what it is, and it is that way despite what your opinion is.

This is not true. While the world can certainly be what it is regardless of your opinion, there is still a difference in consequence based on whether the world is actually objective. That is, we assume the physical world is objective, because if it isn't then there is no point to being with. If the world really isn't objective, then the world really isn't any particular way at all. In fact, I would be inclined to argue that this would lead to absurdism.

I take the same view with morality.


Okay, let's roll with that. I'm an atheist, I don't believe in God. I'm a nice guy, I pay my taxes, I'm generally moral all around. One day, I find God. What changes?


Just for the record, the person in question assumes they are moral. At the very least, that implies you believe in an objective morality, and that was the primary aim of my point, the self inconsistency of subjective morality. If however they believe they are moral based off of society, then they don't REALLY believe that they are actually moral. They believe in a different concept entirely. As for what changes, belief in God is not specifically about morality. It is about salvation. That said though, one who has truly found God, and knows Christ, has the fruits of the spirit.

That said, living a Christlike life IS very different than just appearing outwardly moral, or compliant in society. It's not something that can be adequately pinned down to a list of differences though.

Further, no one is really truly moral. The purpose of the law, and all moral laws, is to show us that we need Christ. We are still to try and seek out righteousness, but we are to understand that it is not our own righteousness. Those who say they are "moral" are by definition not, just as one who actively thinks they are humble is not really. We are not to seek righteousness though because that is what saves us, as that would give us something to boast about, but because we want to be closer to God, and because we want to spread the love of God. One who lives by Christ no longer lives by the written law, because Christ is the living law, the perfect physical expression of the true meaning and understanding behind the written law.


Or, conversely, we have a guy who does believe there is a God and that there is some objective morality, but he's long since departed from it. He's a crook, a liar, a thief. One day he stops believing in God. What changes?


It should be noted that even Satan believes in God. What is really important is not belief, but faith. Jesus said "whoever believes on me", which really implies that someone's belief is centered on Christ. Christ is not just a label or a name but a life and a spirit, and if you truly believe in that life and that spirit, then you would truly have faith in God. Jesus showed us what perfect faith was. That is how we know.


Can belief in God give people impetus to change their ways? Yes. But so can a lot of things, really. All I'm saying is that saying there's an objective morality doesn't actually solve the problem of morality. As long as the view on God is subjective, we come right back to it.


Again, it requires at least the belief in objective morality itself. Even if the viewpoint seems subjective, actually moving from that to the level of saying that morality is subjective removes the impetus to further understand it. It leads to nihilism, which is the will to nothingness. It may not lead to ruin in the course of one person's life, but it will over generations.
#57Faust_8Posted 12/21/2012 4:47:31 PM
Systemafunk posted...
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.

Certainly there is. Amoral nihilism. You can't argue that all moral viewpoints would not disagree with that, because plenty of people, when presented with the idea that there is no basis for moral objectivity, then turn to the only other self consistent conclusion, which is nihilism. Obviously all viewpoints that accept the idea of "morality" would not approve of it, but that is because morality does not exist with the basic idea that "life has value", because if we do not have value, then our views do not either. But the nihilist argues that if that is not objective, then only nihilism is logically coherent, which they are 100% right about.

So why do we accept the fundamental assumption of objectivity in physics, but not in philosophy? Purely because of doubt? Who cares. We can doubt the existence of the physical world as well. It doesn't change the fact that the assumption of a subjective physical reality leads to just as much stupidity and lack of ability to actually have a discussion as does assuming fundamental subjectivity of something like value.

The moment you make this assumption that value is entirely subjective, is the moment that any and all opinions about it are equally valid, and the moment any and all discussion about it is actually objectively pointless, because, like it or not, logic is objective, and you cannot escape that conclusion. Not without admitting to cognitive dissonance at least.


Find me a nihilist culture, that viewed everyone as worthless and had no established laws.

Then I will accept that it is possible for a functioning society to consider murder fine and dandy.

More and more all your "objectivists" try to refute the truth by bring up examples that only work on the individual level. Yes, an individual can be a nihilist. Maybe he even has a few nihilist "friends." But no society is ever like that...because that's not what a society IS.

It's like trying to argue that beauty is objective because if it's not, "people without a nose could be called beautiful one day." It is quite frankly one of the dumbest lines of thinking I've ever come across. It flies in the face of obvious reality--one can see easily how both the concept of beauty and morality has vastly changed through time and persists to be different in different parts of the world. This line of thinking relies entirely on ridiculous, outlandish, and impossible hypothetical situations that can't be generalized to the entire society in a feeble attempt to scare dissenters away.

Yeah, some crazy person might glorify murder. But it is impossible for an ENTIRE SOCIETY to ever come around to that kind of thinking...because then it wouldn't be a society anymore, it would be a free-for-all, and they'd all die save for a few lucky individuals. So to try to counter my arguments with this claptrap has never worked, will never work, and I'm seriously annoyed by how many think it's such a super-duper flawless argument.

C_Mat should take note of this because it would take me too long to highlight everything that was wrong with what he said.
---
The supernatural says that if you act a certain way you might avoid suffering. But reality says you came from the stars...
#58hunter_gohanPosted 12/21/2012 5:02:18 PM
JonWood007 posted...
Well I guess if you define objective as "determined by a man in the sky", but I consider that subjective still because said man in the sky still a conscious being with a specific perspective, and is therefore subjective.


Thank you. Just because they originate in a mind from a being who isn't human doesn't mean it still isn't subjective.

Also, one more thing, looking over your post. I kinda am arguing a prohibition against murder is objective because it is built into the fabric of the universe. Society literally cannot function without it, and that's how it's built in, there's no getting around the need for it, because without it, we would still be in a chaotic state of nature.


This is where I'll have to disagree with you. What is murder? It's the illegal killing of another person. Murder IS that very subjective application of it that you mentioned early. You can't divorce it from that. In one society killing certain criminals is legal; in another it's murder. In one society killing an embryo is legal; in another it's murder.

With this logic you can merely say that laws are "objective".

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.


Banking hard on that appeal to emotion I see.

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?


Because when questioned on why that Universal Rule Giver killed all those innocent children that one time it inevitably becomes a semantic discussion on the definition of "innocent" or how it isn't murder cause god said it was cool or why someone with enough power or who created something in a specific way has the right to break his own "objective" morals just because.
---
If you find yourself falling into madness -- dive. -Malkavian Clan Book 1st edition
We eat gods for breakfast. - Dr Egon Spengler
#59C_Mat(Topic Creator)Posted 12/21/2012 5:05:43 PM
hunter_gohan posted...
Banking hard on that appeal to emotion I see.


Saying this does not defend your point of view.

Because when questioned on why that Universal Rule Giver killed all those innocent children that one time it inevitably becomes a semantic discussion on the definition of "innocent" or how it isn't murder cause god said it was cool or why someone with enough power or who created something in a specific way has the right to break his own "objective" morals just because.


And neither does this.
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#60hunter_gohanPosted 12/21/2012 5:09:46 PM
C_Mat posted...
Saying this does not defend your point of view.

...

And neither does this.


No the definition of subjective defends my point of view. I can do an experiment which demonstrates the acceleration of gravity at sea level on earth is ~9.971 m/s^2. That's objective. Something which only originates within a person's(human or otherwise) mind is subjective.

Whether you think morality originates from humans or a god doesn't matter because they'd both be subjective.
---
If you find yourself falling into madness -- dive. -Malkavian Clan Book 1st edition
We eat gods for breakfast. - Dr Egon Spengler