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

The Sandy Hook shooting: objectively wrong or subjectively wrong?

#61C_Mat(Topic Creator)Posted 12/21/2012 5:35:50 PM
hunter_gohan posted...
Whether you think morality originates from humans or a god doesn't matter because they'd both be subjective.


I'm pretty sure you're just arguing a point that no Christian is trying to debate. If God gives rules for all humans to follow, they're objective at the human level. So I guess they would be subjective at the "God" level. But there's only one God, and when discussing objective/subjective morality, we (Christians) are talking about objective moral values and duties at the human level.
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#62hunter_gohanPosted 12/21/2012 5:46:28 PM
C_Mat posted...
I'm pretty sure you're just arguing a point that no Christian is trying to debate. If God gives rules for all humans to follow, they're objective at the human level. So I guess they would be subjective at the "God" level. But there's only one God, and when discussing objective/subjective morality, we (Christians) are talking about objective moral values and duties at the human level.


Yes I know. Should we kill people because he says so, or should we not kill people because he says so. Hanging onto your favorite tyrannical dictator and saying "anything he says is the objective moral truth." doesn't actually make it objective. No mattter how much more power this other being has than you it is still entirely subjective and you mistaking "commands from authority" as "objective morality".
---
If you find yourself falling into madness -- dive. -Malkavian Clan Book 1st edition
We eat gods for breakfast. - Dr Egon Spengler
#63gamesrgreatPosted 12/21/2012 5:51:15 PM
From: JonWood007 | #018
Eating fatty food is objectively worse than eating healthy ones, because there are real world consequences to eating fatty foods.


lol naw playah. Idk why you are distinguishing between fatty foods and healthy ones as if fatty foods aren't healthy. Fat is an essential part of the diet and a large part of the saturated fat hypothesis has been discredited. Healthy foods such as eggs or milk or nuts contain high amounts of fat and societies have thrived and been healthy while consuming an extremely high fat diet. Some kinds of fat are of course bad such as trans fat. However, trans fat largely was created from unsaturated fats that people were attempting to use the same way as saturated due to their fears regarding saturated fat.

Off topic I know but I felt like I had to say this lol
---
D-Jesus, Christ Bosh, King James 3:16
The Miami Heat 2012 Champs- Miller Time
#64SystemafunkPosted 12/21/2012 6:04:23 PM
Find me a nihilist culture, that viewed everyone as worthless and had no established laws.

That isn't what happens in a nihilistic culture. That isn't my claim. However, it doesn't change the fact that most of them, the ones still clinging onto their own subjective ideas of morality are self inconsistent.


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


I was talking about individuals.


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 doesn't change the fact that we are not having a discussion specifically about whatever societies tend towards. We are talking about whether or not subjective morality is simply a contradiction in terms. We are talking about whether or not subjective morality as a concept is inherently bankrupt. You trying to distract from that by pointing that not all members of a society of relativists will actually be internally nihilistic is beside the point.


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."


No it isn't.


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.


There is absolutely no reason that beauty would NEED to be objective to be valid. That is the difference. Morality needs to be objective because it deals with value. Value is not something self referential. Value is ontological. Beauty deals with aesthetics, which is by definition "in the eye of the beholder". It is an entirely introspective process.


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.


No, it relies on logic.


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.


No it relies on the problem that if you refuse the notion of objective morality, you cannot actually declare murder wrong without cognitive dissonance. Beauty is nothing like that, because beauty does not involve people making actions that may or may not devalue something with value. Beauty is entirely personal. Morality is not.
#65SystemafunkPosted 12/21/2012 6:06:04 PM
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.


And then of course if God is a creator God, God created gravity. Doesn't change the fact that subjective observation of the objective gravity still leaves gravity as objectively existing, now does it?
#66SystemafunkPosted 12/21/2012 6:12:58 PM
And this is very similar to back when I tried to make the argument that "smoking was objectively bad for you".

The argument that was brought up in response was classic relativistic nihilism. Basically, the idea was that even if smoking was bad for most people, and most people would be happier not smoking, smoking makes some people legitimately happier, therefore it is not objectively bad. The problem of course is that this argument ignores the very objective fact that addiction exists. Every single person on the face of the planet that smokes justifies continuing to smoke in the same way: that they are happier smoking than not. Every single person thinks THEY are the exception. And every single one of them is mistaking the lack of happiness experienced because of withdrawal as them being "less happy not smoking". I don't really care if someone thinks that any given thing is "best" for them, because the facts are that in an objective physical world, which we DO assume, some things are just objectively bad for people, and very often, this means they are objectively bad for all people.
#67CuddleWithClawsPosted 12/21/2012 6:29:18 PM
The universe didn't implode from moral imbalance. We were not struck down by the fiery wrath of some perturbed eternal constant. There is simply no unequivocal objective moral force that acts upon everyone as the same impetus.
---
There must be hope.
#68SystemafunkPosted 12/21/2012 6:36:02 PM
Morality is a function of will. Of course the universe would not end because of some kind of moral impetus, because that has nothing to do with morality.

Morality requires two things. Choice and value. It is a concept that applies only to beings of will, moral agents. Furthermore, questions of morality only INVOLVE life in the first place. For example, no one would ever say that "destroying a rock" by itself was immoral. However, it would be much more possible to consider destroying something that someone owns to be immoral because it immediately involves another life form. Likewise, a tornado is not immoral for killing someone, even though a life was taken away.

The exception to this is God's will, because God is the permanent source of everything.
#69hunter_gohanPosted 12/21/2012 6:40:37 PM
Systemafunk posted...
And then of course if God is a creator God, God created gravity. Doesn't change the fact that subjective observation of the objective gravity still leaves gravity as objectively existing, now does it?


If gravity was merely "what god said it was" and 'g' varied based on his mood then yeah it'd be subjective too. 'g' was ~9.791 m/s^2 3000 years ago and it is today.
---
If you find yourself falling into madness -- dive. -Malkavian Clan Book 1st edition
We eat gods for breakfast. - Dr Egon Spengler
#70BashyMcFetusPosted 12/21/2012 7:17:24 PM
C_Mat posted...
God is not subject to human morality. No theist is holds God to the human standard.

So then morality is subjective. If morality was objective it would be the same for everyone and everything. If there are exceptions, it's not objective.

And attacking someone else's source of morality does nothing to defend your lack of a source.

You use subjective morality, which is what I'm trying to show you, but you just keep ignoring it.

I said, "It could. But it doesn't."

And you know this how?

No, I'm saying hypotheticals don't count because even if you could come up with an alternative hypothetical universe with alternative moral standards, I just don't see how it would have any effect on our current conversation.

Which is the exact same as saying hypotheticals don't count. If I propse a hypothetical that proves you wrong, you're just going to say "Doesn't affect our current conversation", oven if it proves you completely wrong.
---
By Evolution, I mean Evolution. As in "I look different from my parents because of evolution" ~OrangeWizard