The PokéCommunity Forums  

Go Back   The PokéCommunity Forums > Off-Topic Discussions > Discussions & Debates
Sign Up Rules/FAQ Live Battle Blogs Mark Forums Read

Notices

Discussions & Debates The place to go for slightly more in-depth topics. Discussions and debates about the world, current events, ideas, news, and more.


Closed Thread
Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.  
Thread Tools
  #1    
Old August 14th, 2013, 11:11 AM
Princess Sandshrew's Avatar
Princess Sandshrew
PokéRespect
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Your Rival's house
Age: 22
Gender: Female
Nature: Docile
Why do you think something is right or wrong?
Is all morality learned? Or taught? Maybe a bit of both. Can you only find true morality in religion? Do you just follow your society?

How can you know what you believe to right, how can you trust any one moral stand point when many people differ so much?

An example of differing morals could be with giving the death sentence to a murderer, one side can say it is right (an eye for an eye, if you will) and the other saying it is wrong (two wrongs don't make a right). How can you say either one is right and why would you believe that?


I personally find it hard to think of things as being right or wrong, because actions are not inherently right or wrong, it is just what we call them.
__________________
“You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is like an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.”
― Mahatma Gandhi
  #2    
Old August 14th, 2013, 11:43 AM
Pinkie-Dawn's Avatar
Pinkie-Dawn
I Am Become Death
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: California
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Nature: Quirky
One of my friends from Skype doesn't believe in morality, because it's man made, so we can do whatever we want (stealing, killing, raping, etc.) and not let anything control us on what is right or wrong, because it's human nature. I'm not sure if that also means we can't have limits to our behavior.
__________________
Credit goes to grundo80 from imgur for the gif
  #3    
Old August 14th, 2013, 02:55 PM
BraveNewWorld's Avatar
BraveNewWorld
The Breaker
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: New York
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Nature: Adamant
It's very difficult for me to articulate my thoughts on this. Basically something is right for everyone because it's good for you. Something is wrong for everyone because it's bad for you. When it doesn't pertain to you it becomes very difficult to decipher right from wrong. For instance...

Murderers = Bad, because you don't want to be murdered.
Killing murderers = ???, because you don't want to kill.

Because you don't want to kill or be murdered it becomes difficult to justify either action. This is why some things (murder) are accepted as wrong, while others (death penalty) receive mixed reactions.

I hope that makes sense.
__________________
  #4    
Old August 14th, 2013, 04:12 PM
Aques Keus's Avatar
Aques Keus
Swaggins
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: The Cave of Hymns
Age: 18
Gender: Male
Nature: Brave
Each person perceives the universe differently, and the way they perceive the universe is how the universe is. Morality is simply the person's beliefs, and acts as a sort of leash for everyone. This means that what I perceive as good and evil, is what is good or evil, and the same goes for anyone else. This unfortunately gives everyone the basic right to do whatever they want, essentially making them void of any morals. Luckily, humans all have a shared morality belief for the most part, and although one person can not simply state what is right or wrong, we can mutually agree that something is right or wrong, and that those who stray from this belief are malicious.

I personally strongly stick to the rules given to me, whether or not they are right or not. I will not question any laws, even if I think I should. I also have the belief that no human is allowed to kill another. I also believe that anybody who breaks this rule will be punished whether I do anything about it or not. (I do not trust my perception of morality, so I will cling safely to the clear ones written out as law)
__________________
College Bound, Mentally Sound.

Frio & Elise || Jayce & Jayce 2
  #5    
Old August 14th, 2013, 04:32 PM
AliasHackyCat
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: In the deep TOR cloud.
Gender:
Nature: Careful
Well... I'll do an IMO post ;

I think that a murderer shouldn't be killed for having killed, but I also think that prison should be about re-education and rehabilitation, while it isn't. Prison IS an eye for an eye sort of thing, because... They treat prisoners like animals. :I Also, I think that, redistribution, if not of something indie, is pretty morale. One should have the freedom to share any way he want. That's pretty much my thoughts, though... Morale is something that is different for anyone.
  #6    
Old August 14th, 2013, 04:43 PM
twocows's Avatar
twocows
Pretentious Intellectual Jerk
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Nature: Lax
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Sandshrew View Post
Why do you think something is right or wrong?
Is all morality learned? Or taught? Maybe a bit of both. Can you only find true morality in religion? Do you just follow your society?

How can you know what you believe to right, how can you trust any one moral stand point when many people differ so much?

An example of differing morals could be with giving the death sentence to a murderer, one side can say it is right (an eye for an eye, if you will) and the other saying it is wrong (two wrongs don't make a right). How can you say either one is right and why would you believe that?


I personally find it hard to think of things as being right or wrong, because actions are not inherently right or wrong, it is just what we call them.
I dispute the idea that morality is a man-made concept. It's more something we came to understand better as we evolved.

The fact that different people have different takes on the subject does not make it impossible to come to a definitive answer, nor does it justify all takes on the subject. People debate things all the time, that doesn't mean one answer can't be right and the other can't be wrong. Galileo argued that the Earth revolved around the sun, but nearly everyone of the time disagreed. And yet, he was right and they were wrong. Just because the answer is hard to come upon does not mean it does not exist, and the pursuit of this answer is the foundation of the study of ethics.

Moral relativism is the easy way out. It's saying "the answer is that there is no answer." Of course, if that was truly the case, you could justify anything. Such an idea devalues those ideas which nearly every branch of ethics seeks to protect in some way (foremost of which is human happiness). In other words, in a morally relativistic world, happiness has no value.

Except happiness does have value to us. This is self-evident; we desire it, thus it has value to us, as attaining it (in some form or another) is one of the essential ideas upon which we predicate our lives.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkie-Dawn View Post
One of my friends from Skype doesn't believe in morality, because it's man made, so we can do whatever we want (stealing, killing, raping, etc.) and not let anything control us on what is right or wrong, because it's human nature. I'm not sure if that also means we can't have limits to our behavior.
Yes, I remember you referencing this person's beliefs before. There are several flaws with this idea. First, the idea that something is man-made does not divorce it from value; quite the contrary, plenty of man-made things have value (houses, computers, toilets, etc.).

Secondly, as I said previously, I am of the mind that morality is not a man-made concept. Any sufficiently evolved species will eventually experience happiness in some form. Happiness is the basis of all moral belief (most obviously utilitarianism, but really any moral philosophy ties into the concept in some way). Some ultimate, unifying ethical code likely exists, whether we have happened upon it or not. And even if that isn't the case, it doesn't mean that an answer that gets it right in some way isn't better than no answer at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveNewWorld View Post
It's very difficult for me to articulate my thoughts on this. Basically something is right for everyone because it's good for you. Something is wrong for everyone because it's bad for you. When it doesn't pertain to you it becomes very difficult to decipher right from wrong. For instance...

Murderers = Bad, because you don't want to be murdered.
Killing murderers = ???, because you don't want to kill.

Because you don't want to kill or be murdered it becomes difficult to justify either action. This is why some things (murder) are accepted as wrong, while others (death penalty) receive mixed reactions.

I hope that makes sense.
You're referring to the Golden Rule, a very old concept with a lot of merit. However, I don't think all ethical responsibility can be simplified to such a rule, especially one that is so dependent on personal thresholds of acceptable or unacceptable.
__________________
Doctors Without Borders: one of the few charity groups you can rely on to actually do real good in the world.

PM me if you have computer troubles. I work in IT for a living and can probably solve your problems. My rate is $expensive/hr, but I'm still cheaper than Creep Squad and, unlike them, will actually get the job done or let you know if I can't.

Quote:
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
- H. L. Mencken, unsourced

Quote:
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
- Isaac Asimov, Column in Newsweek (21 January 1980) [source]

NEW 40K MMOFPS YESSSSS
  #7    
Old August 14th, 2013, 06:24 PM
Sandshrew4's Avatar
Sandshrew4
Also known as Sandwich
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Illinois, USA
Age: 16
Gender: Male
Nature: Careful
My view on morality is too simple.
If it negatively effects someone, it's immoral.
If it positively effects someone, it's moral.
If it neutrally effects someone, it doesn't really matter.
Probably incorrect, but that's how I see it.
__________________
I like Sandshrews. A lot. I am Sandshrews number 1 fan. And don't you deny it.
My friend code for White 2 is 4857 7379 4725
  #8    
Old August 14th, 2013, 07:10 PM
kosuke's Avatar
kosuke
Extraterrestrial DNA
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Philippines
Age: 15
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
Send a message via Skype™ to kosuke
okay... immorality, huh? I say...
All of us has a different view, an opinion. Other people think inside the box, others think outside the box, and a few think through the box. It doesn't matter. Everyone must accept and understand each other's point of view. Everyone must search every portion of the box so that we will understand each other. No opinion is right nor wrong. Everyone has his righteousness. We just sometimes see it at the opposite side of the man's view.
__________________
☣ ☣ デオキシス ☣ ☣
DNA from a space virus mutated and became a Pokémon. It appears where auroras are seen.
claimsVMPMBattle ServerDeviantArttumblr
  #9    
Old August 14th, 2013, 08:13 PM
J's Avatar
J
good morning
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Nature: Jolly
Quote:
Originally Posted by kosuke View Post
No opinion is right nor wrong.
I am of the opinion that the sky is magenta, that the Earth is flat, that the blood of unwed virgins are my God-given property, and that an intravenous administration of 10 percent solution of potassium cyanide at 20ml/day is beneficial to your health.

I am sorry if I sound like a jerk, but what you're thinking there is incredibly dangerous.
__________________
  #10    
Old August 14th, 2013, 09:20 PM
kosuke's Avatar
kosuke
Extraterrestrial DNA
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Philippines
Age: 15
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
Send a message via Skype™ to kosuke
Quote:
Originally Posted by J View Post
I am of the opinion that the sky is magenta, that the Earth is flat, that the blood of unwed virgins are my God-given property, and that an intravenous administration of 10 percent solution of potassium cyanide at 20ml/day is beneficial to your health.

I am sorry if I sound like a jerk, but what you're thinking there is incredibly dangerous.
Chill, man. I was just stating my side of thinking. Well, i think i kinda exaggerated with that statement, though.. so yeah. sorry for that. but what i'm trying to say is that everyone really have an opinion, but these opinions came up because they understand and know that they could defend what their opinion is. so i'll ask you, could you defend that the sky is magenta? how did you say that earth is flat if it is already proven that it is not? why did you say that the blood of unwed virgins are your God-given property? explain why you think that an intravenous administration of 10 percent solution of potassium cyanide at 20mL/day is beneficial to your health? its not that i'm fighting with you or something, its just that i defended my opinion.
oh by the way, if its baseless, its a bluff not an opinion.
__________________
☣ ☣ デオキシス ☣ ☣
DNA from a space virus mutated and became a Pokémon. It appears where auroras are seen.
claimsVMPMBattle ServerDeviantArttumblr
  #11    
Old August 14th, 2013, 11:17 PM
Princess Sandshrew's Avatar
Princess Sandshrew
PokéRespect
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Your Rival's house
Age: 22
Gender: Female
Nature: Docile
Quote:
Originally Posted by twocows View Post
I dispute the idea that morality is a man-made concept. It's more something we came to understand better as we evolved.

The fact that different people have different takes on the subject does not make it impossible to come to a definitive answer, nor does it justify all takes on the subject. People debate things all the time, that doesn't mean one answer can't be right and the other can't be wrong. Galileo argued that the Earth revolved around the sun, but nearly everyone of the time disagreed. And yet, he was right and they were wrong. Just because the answer is hard to come upon does not mean it does not exist, and the pursuit of this answer is the foundation of the study of ethics.
So morality is something we all have by nature? Does that not imply we should all have a very similar moral outlook?

Do you mean that there are one set of true morals and we only need to find them?
How do we determine what is right and what is wrong? As you gave example of one person can be right while the majority is wrong, so I could go and say that I believe that paedophilia is not only not harmful to children but it is beneficial to them. Now most people will tell me I am wrong, why? No matter what evidence I show I am adamant that most people will still disagree with me.
My point is how do you show I am wrong without pitting opinion against opinion? Do you not need some kind of factual basis.


I hope I got my point across, it is somewhat early for me and I know I will not remember my argument even 20 minutes later (I have a poor short-term memory).
__________________
“You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is like an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.”
― Mahatma Gandhi
  #12    
Old August 17th, 2013, 08:04 PM
Lance's Avatar
Lance
Master of Dragons
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Blackthorn City
Gender: Male
Nature: Adamant
Send a message via Skype™ to Lance
Morality is very rarely a Black & White thing, it is so very arbitrary and open to interpretation - there are many shades of grey between. There is, however, a correct shade and a proper answer. Having an opinion doesn't make you right.
__________________
  #13    
Old August 17th, 2013, 08:15 PM
OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire's Avatar
OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire
10000 year Emperor of Hoenn
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: West Coast
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Nature: Calm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Livewire View Post
Morality is very rarely a Black & White thing, it is so very arbitrary and open to interpretation - there are many shades of grey between. There is, however, a correct shade and a proper answer. Having an opinion doesn't make you right.
This.
In school we saw this clip of a study on young children and morality, according to the study it was found that young children do have some kind of morality upon birth...however they also found some bigotry...
So imo we're born with some morals, are taught, and teach morals whether we choose to or not.
__________________
Stand for Life
  #14    
Old August 19th, 2013, 12:05 PM
Cassino's Avatar
Cassino
A TPC classic.
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Gender:
Nature: Serious
Quote:
Originally Posted by Livewire View Post
Morality is very rarely a Black & White thing, it is so very arbitrary and open to interpretation - there are many shades of grey between. There is, however, a correct shade and a proper answer. Having an opinion doesn't make you right.
You seem to imply that you are not of the opinion that such a 'correct shade' exists, instead that you know. So how does one come to know the correct shade? I don't suppose it is merely the 'widsom of society', all human fallibility considered.
  #15    
Old August 19th, 2013, 02:28 PM
daigonite's Avatar
daigonite
Ninjas Against Bottomless Pits
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: With the Birds
Age: 21
Gender: Female
Nature: Impish
Morality is a pretty personal business, with a general overlay involving society. Since society has a lot more power than say you or I, it has a lot more say in what's considered "right" or "wrong". But, as personal morality begins to grow, and individuals start to believe in a different version of morality, society's morality is updated to more represent the morality of all the people. Since the people and society are intertwined, so is morality and the relationship between people and society. I can't really think of many instances where something that is considered immoral is recognized worldwide - what may be considered murder is considered a rightful death in another place, while in western societies suicide and cannibalism are considered wrong, in many eastern countries suicide is often taken as a political statement or a step towards achieving enlightenment, and cannibalism occurs in many cultures' religious acts. I think maybe the only thing I can think of is incest, but I have a strong feeling that there are cultures that don't believe that incest is immoral (although its immorality is beneficial from an evolutionary standpoint).
__________________
  #16    
Old August 20th, 2013, 04:00 AM
Plumpyfoof's Avatar
Plumpyfoof
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Nature: Sassy
Send a message via Skype™ to Plumpyfoof
We will never ever see the day where every human in existence agrees that one thing or another is moral.
Inb4 "But wait Plumps, surely taking the life of another innocent person is immoral"
Well I can think of several scenarios in which it could be seen as perfectly acceptable; when your friend has asked for you specifically to pull the plug on them rather than keep them a vegetable the rest of their life for one.

A simple Google search has led me to a few morality conundrums for us to discuss:
Spoiler:
Quote:
You are an inmate in a concentration camp. A sadistic guard is about to hang your son who tried to escape and wants you to pull the chair from underneath him. He says that if you don’t he will not only kill your son but some other innocent inmate as well. You don’t have any doubt that he means what he says. What should you do?

Spoiler:
Quote:
You are an emergency worker that has just been called to the scene of an accident. When you arrive you see that the car belongs to your wife. Fearing the worst you rush over to see she is trapped in her car with another man.She sees you and although barely conscious, she manages to mouth the words “I’m sorry”…You don’t understand, but her look answers you question. The man next to her is her lover with whom she’s been having an affair.You reel back in shock, devastated by what her eyes have just told you. As you step back, the wreck in front of you comes into focus. You see your wife is seriously hurt and she needs attention straight away. Even if she gets attention there’s a very high chance she’ll die.You look at the seat next to her and see her lover. He’s bleeding heavily from a wound to the neck and you need to stem the flow of blood immediately. It will only take about 5 minutes to stop, but it will mean your wife will definitely die.If you tend to your wife however, the man will bleed to death despite the fact it could have been avoided.Who would you choose to work on?

Spoiler:
Quote:
You and your family are going away for the weekend. Your daughter is 7 and is best friends with your niece, who is also 7. Your families are very close and your daughter asks if your niece can come with you on your holiday. You have been on holidays together before and don’t see any problem, so you agree.You arrive at your holiday destination and the house you are staying at backs onto a beach. The girls ask if they can go for a swim. You tell them that they have to wait until you have unpacked the car, but they can play on the sand directly in front of the beach. They run down to the sand, and you begin to unpack the car. After about 5 minutes, you hear screaming coming from the direction of the beach and it sounds like the girls.You run down to see what the matter is, and you discover that they hadn’t listened to you and have gone for a swim. There is no one else on the beach and the girls are caught in a rip.The girls are really struggling, particularly your niece who isn’t as strong a swimmer as your daughter.You swim out quickly, but when you get there, you realize that there is no way you will be able to get both the girls back into shore on your own. You realize that an agonizing decision will need to be made.You need to decide which of the girls you will rescue first, you have enough strength and energy to rescue them both, but you can only do it one at a time. You look at the two girls, and your niece is really struggling to hold her head above water and you know if you take your daughter back first, there will be little or no chance that she will survive.Your daughter is struggling also, but is much stronger in the water and you estimate that if you take your niece back to shore first, there’s probably a 50% chance that your daughter will be able to stay afloat long enough for you return, but you simply don’t know how long she will hold on for.

Spoiler:
Quote:
One morning you are driving to work, and as per usual you are running a bit late, so you are driving a touch faster than the speed limit. You reach down to your stereo to change the CD, when all of a sudden your car hits something solid. You spin to a stop, but not before several more cars have run into you and each other in an attempt to avoid the accident.As you look up and out of your car, you can see that you hit a person, and that the person is not looking very good. In fact, you are sure that they are dead. You shakily get out of your car, and look around at the damage that has been caused. Several cars have been badly smashed up, but more importantly you have killed someone with your careless driving.As you are standing there in shock, a woman comes up to you, tears running down her face, and obviously very shook up. As a natural reaction, you ask her what is wrong. She gives you a funny look, and then she explains that she just ran over someone. You ask her where this person is, and she points towards the person that you ran over!You don’t understand why, but for some reason this woman thinks that she caused this accident and killed the person, when in fact you are well aware that you were the cause. Whoever accepts the blame is likely to be placed in jail for a very long time. If you let the woman take the blame, there is a very good chance you will get away with it all. However, there is also the chance that you could be placed in jail for even longer for trying to cover it up.


That'll do I guess, my responses to the spoilers can be found in:
Spoiler:
The other spoiler! OMG SHOCKER!


Spoiler:
1. Let the guard kill both my son and another inmate.
2. Work on my wife's lover, he may not have known he was doing wrong. And if he did there's always time for revenge.
3. Niece first, think about how her parents would be if you saved your stronger swimming daughter first.
4. Let them believe, how do you know that you hit the person. Your car hit something hard and a person would not spin the car out. You didn't actually kill them.
  #17    
Old August 20th, 2013, 05:39 AM
Aques Keus's Avatar
Aques Keus
Swaggins
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: The Cave of Hymns
Age: 18
Gender: Male
Nature: Brave
Spoiler:

1. Ask my Son what he wants, it's his life, not mine.
2. I'd save the guy, I won't let two lives be lost in order to probably save one.
3. Save the niece, save the daughter. If the daughter dies, then it would entirely be my fault and the consequences would be relatively more personal. I believe I'd be able to save both though.
4. Carelessness is something you have to take responsibility for. I would not even dare to say that the woman was the one who killed the person, regardless of whether or not there is a possibility that she did, (All I know for a fact is that I hit the guy, I know nothing else.)

The first three are rather unfair, it's less a question of morality and more a question of who's life you value more.
__________________
College Bound, Mentally Sound.

Frio & Elise || Jayce & Jayce 2
  #18    
Old August 20th, 2013, 03:38 PM
Shamol's Avatar
Shamol
Omelette du fromage
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Dhaka
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
Send a message via Skype™ to Shamol
Whoa, this is an interesting discussion.

In my view, Morality isn't something dependent on people's views, it's objective. I quite like philosopher Michael Ruse's quote in this regard: "The man who says that it is morally acceptable to rape little children is just as mistaken as the man who says, 2+2=5." Thinking of morality being analogous to rationality is useful and (I think) accurate, our core moral perceptions are just as strong, if not stronger, than our belief in arithmetic or logical truths.

I have two things to say about ethical relativism.

First, just because people agree on a topic doesn't mean the difference of opinion is valid. There are people who believe the earth is flat or the universe is 6000 years old, or that the existence of other minds is illusory. We don't say relativism/withholding judgment about these things is warranted, rather we simply say those people are wrong. Similarly, Nazis and children-sacrificing communities are wrong when they commit morally reprehensible acts. I don't understand why some posters have cited the diversity of human opinion on morality as a defeater to objective morality, it's no more than a description of reality. People may not agree on the age of the universe, but so what? Does it commit us to say that there opinion is of value?

Second, in many cases, ethical diversity is only superficial. In OP's example about death penalty for example, the two parties don't disagree that justice needs to be served, they just have different perceptions about what might be the right way of going about it. In other words, they agree on moral values, but differ on moral duties. I believe much of the ethical diversity in the world are likewise superficial.

Plumpyfoof:

Quote:
We will never ever see the day where every human in existence agrees that one thing or another is moral.
Inb4 "But wait Plumps, surely taking the life of another innocent person is immoral"
Well I can think of several scenarios in which it could be seen as perfectly acceptable; when your friend has asked for you specifically to pull the plug on them rather than keep them a vegetable the rest of their life for one.
This hardly commits us to moral relativism. The conundrums you mention can easily be averted by specifying a context to a moral statement, e.g. instead of saying "taking innocent lives is wrong in general" we could say "taking innocent lives is wrong except in contexts X, Y and Z".

Additionally, there are some moral statements that are absolutely indubitable. Consider (sorry for the example) "cutting up babies into little pieces just for fun".

Princess Sandshrew:

Quote:
Do you mean that there are one set of true morals and we only need to find them?
There are two distinct questions here:

1. Does objective morality exist?
2. How do we know which moral values are objective?

Let's not get them mixed up. Someone can answer in the affirmative for 1 but withhold judgment on 2: she could say "I know objective moral values exist, and I can think of some examples of objective moral values (e.g. recreationally raping children is wrong), but I don't know all instances of objective moral values there is." This is crucial, because just because we may not know all the "true moral values", doesn't at all mean no true moral values exists. This consideration also defeats the repeated appeals to "ethical diversity" against objective morality in this thread.

Kosuke:

Quote:
Chill, man. I was just stating my side of thinking. Well, i think i kinda exaggerated with that statement, though.. so yeah. sorry for that. but what i'm trying to say is that everyone really have an opinion, but these opinions came up because they understand and know that they could defend what their opinion is. so i'll ask you, could you defend that the sky is magenta? how did you say that earth is flat if it is already proven that it is not? why did you say that the blood of unwed virgins are your God-given property? explain why you think that an intravenous administration of 10 percent solution of potassium cyanide at 20mL/day is beneficial to your health? its not that i'm fighting with you or something, its just that i defended my opinion.
There are quite some truths we accept without "evidence" (a priori truths). Examples are: laws of logic, truths of mathematics, introspective beliefs, human perception of the external reality in general, memory beliefs, and so on.

David Hume in his Inquiries Concerning Human Understanding argued that science is a non-rational enterprise, because the premise of science- induction- cannot be substantiated with evidence. His problem was, he didn't acknowledge the existence of a prior beliefs, things we simply know to be true without having evidence to believe them. These are integral parts of human noetic structure.
__________________
Check out my blog
  #19    
Old August 20th, 2013, 03:48 PM
Fernando Torres's Avatar
Fernando Torres
Class on grass
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Gender: Male
Nature: Jolly
I believe that you don't need to learn any morals. It's just something you have inside you that was there since conception, and will be there until what Catholics say the ascension.
__________________
  #20    
Old August 22nd, 2013, 06:10 PM
Arago's Avatar
Arago
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: South Jersey
Gender: Male
Nature: Quirky
Quote:
Originally Posted by twocows View Post
Moral relativism is the easy way out. It's saying "the answer is that there is no answer." Of course, if that was truly the case, you could justify anything. Such an idea devalues those ideas which nearly every branch of ethics seeks to protect in some way (foremost of which is human happiness). In other words, in a morally relativistic world, happiness has no value.

Except happiness does have value to us. This is self-evident; we desire it, thus it has value to us, as attaining it (in some form or another) is one of the essential ideas upon which we predicate our lives.


Yes, I remember you referencing this person's beliefs before. There are several flaws with this idea. First, the idea that something is man-made does not divorce it from value; quite the contrary, plenty of man-made things have value (houses, computers, toilets, etc.).

Secondly, as I said previously, I am of the mind that morality is not a man-made concept. Any sufficiently evolved species will eventually experience happiness in some form. Happiness is the basis of all moral belief (most obviously utilitarianism, but really any moral philosophy ties into the concept in some way). Some ultimate, unifying ethical code likely exists, whether we have happened upon it or not. And even if that isn't the case, it doesn't mean that an answer that gets it right in some way isn't better than no answer at all.
What about people who gain some twisted forme of happiness from doing horrible things, like murdering someone in cold blood?

I'm not arguing your point. I'm just interested in your take on the matter.
__________________
  #21    
Old August 23rd, 2013, 12:12 AM
Shamol's Avatar
Shamol
Omelette du fromage
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Dhaka
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
Send a message via Skype™ to Shamol
Quote:
What about people who gain some twisted forme of happiness from doing horrible things, like murdering someone in cold blood?

I'm not arguing your point. I'm just interested in your take on the matter.
Twocows can probably elaborate more on this, but "happiness" shouldn't be equivocated with "immediate happiness". For instance, your hypothetical murderer may get happiness from murder. But if she practices restraint in this matter, then the joy of saving human life would be more profound.

I remember reading this in Will Durant's book: "Epicurus, then, was no Epicurean." The Greek philosopher is often associated with a radical form of utilitarianism. But in reality what Epicurus sought was intellectual or altruistic pleasure, which is deeper. So maybe a "good" utilitarianist would argue as such: one should adopt the course of action which warrants the highest amount of profound happiness, as opposed to immediate happiness.
__________________
Check out my blog
  #22    
Old November 11th, 2013, 07:45 AM
KittenKoder's Avatar
KittenKoder
I Am No One Else
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Seattle
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Nature: Calm
All of it is subjective. It was considered moral to kill anyone who was not part of a tribe, and eat them, for many tribal cultures of the past. But today many, not all, societies now consider that unethical. History is riddled with such clear and solid evidence demonstrating how subjective things are.

We know our laws are subjective, yet like ethics, we define them based on what helps society as a whole function better, that's instinctual in itself as well. Empathy, a genetic trait by all accounts, plays a role in most mammalian species, and many others, in forming societies, it's one of our primary social traits. Some people lack this trait, and thus we tell them to just live by our rules or remove yourself from our society. Empathy varies too, it's not even a solid "yes" or "no," nothing about living organisms can ever be defined as dichotomies.

The reason this whole "objective morality" nonsense started was as a method of controlling the masses without government, fear tends to be a very effective method in getting people to do what you want them to do. What stops psychotic people from killing? The threat of losing their freedom, there are many psychotic personalities living in even the most civilized societies, freely contributing like all other members, and finding other ways that will not risk the loss of freedom to sate this urge to hurt something, video games are one really good method.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shamol View Post
.... (cropped for length)

There are quite some truths we accept without "evidence" (a priori truths). Examples are: laws of logic, truths of mathematics, introspective beliefs, human perception of the external reality in general, memory beliefs, and so on.

David Hume in his Inquiries Concerning Human Understanding argued that science is a non-rational enterprise, because the premise of science- induction- cannot be substantiated with evidence. His problem was, he didn't acknowledge the existence of a prior beliefs, things we simply know to be true without having evidence to believe them. These are integral parts of human noetic structure.
Yeah ... nope. Everything that we accept as fact is supported by evidence, anything that is not supported by evidence is delegated to guess.

Oh wait, you were talking about "truths" ... as far as I can see no one has lied. You should be careful of your wording, really. Using the word "truth" in that manner is highly inaccurate, science doesn't dictate reality, unlike what religion attempts to do, and thus we deal with facts, evidence, and results, everything else is generally useless after exploration into a matter has begun. We do understand how memory works, that's just too easy, neurologists are pretty certain how it works and we even design AIs that simulate this pretty well, just not the "laws of logic," that you brought up.

Laws of logic can be demonstrated, and the demonstration is supporting evidence. Belief is just superstition, actually a genetic instinct to fear the places we cannot immediately comprehend, thus we create stories about what's in the shadows ... but it's all made up. It's why kids often insist there is a monster under the bed, it's that same instinctual trait that kept our ancestors safe when they first climbed from the trees.

Perception is another easy one, it's demonstrated all the time to every living person. Hate to burst your bubble, but there is no "sixth sense" of any sort, there is no "knowing something is true without evidence." Every fact can be demonstrated to work the same in all cases, at all times, if such a demonstration cannot be made, then it's not a fact.
__________________
If you add me, please message me so I can reciprocate. No, garbage does not make a cute Pokemon, and it smells funny.

Join me on IRC, synirc.net #PokemonTactics, for friendly discussions on tactics and strategies.

Last edited by KittenKoder; November 11th, 2013 at 07:58 AM. Reason: Your double post has been automatically merged.
  #23    
Old November 11th, 2013, 09:47 AM
Esper's Avatar
Esper
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
We generally don't want threads over a month old posted in. That's because if a month has passed without any posts it's generally thought that the topic is dead and that anyone who has already posted in it won't think to come back and check.

But if you want to start a new thread on this topic or a similar one then that's A-OK!
__________________

deviantart blog pair
Closed Thread
Quick Reply

Sponsored Links
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Minimum Characters Per Post: 25



All times are UTC -8. The time now is 08:41 AM.


Style by Nymphadora, artwork by Sa-Dui.
Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2014 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2014 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.