View Poll Results: Are morals objective or relative?

Voters
143. You may not vote on this poll
  • Morals are objective

    46 32.17%
  • Morals are relative

    97 67.83%
Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
... LastLast
  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Fuzzzie View Post
    It's no trouble!

    Anyways back on topic I guess.
    I know who is my hater, now.

    ANYWAYS BACK ON TOPIC - OP, i'll look for a link on this exact same subject for you, it has a nice explanation about it, i'll edit this post once i find it.

  2. #22
    The Lightbringer Kevyne-Shandris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Basking in the Light
    Posts
    3,255
    Objective.

    They are based on thousands of years of testing on human nature. It's so universal -- "the golden rules" -- that it's even incorporated in many religions around the world that don't even have cultural ties.

    Cause and effect, and the consequences, are great teachers.
    From the #1 Cata review on Amazon.com: "Blizzard's greatest misstep was blaming players instead of admitting their mistakes. They've convinced half of the population that the other half are unskilled whiners, causing a permanent rift in the community."
    Blizzard's blame game in action: Deleting 6,100+ of Kevyne's posts and threads from the WoW forums.

  3. #23
    Bloodsail Admiral Ishu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    1,036
    Morals are entirely subjective. If they weren't, we wouldn't have such things as wars.

  4. #24
    Natural morals are objective. Learned morals are subjective.

    Natural morals: Morals based on adverse and/or fearful reactions to occurrences that a child or savant with no higher level knowledge or understanding of social constructs would experience (example death, theft, blackmail, rape, etc.)

    Learned Morals: What other people teach you is right and wrong based upon how they would like to modify their environment to suit their own comfort level.

  5. #25
    Typrax,

    You need to deal with semantics when handling this sort of topic. Personally, I would suggest not using terms like "subjective" or "objective" at all. I've already seen people use the term in what seems like totally opposite ways.

    Beliefs in morality are "objective" in many ways and "relative" in many ways. Even belief in empiricism is both "objective" and "relative" in many ways. So what use is saying this without defining exactly what we mean?

    Untill we have a better idea of what it is we are actually talking about, here's something to think about:

    One might say "good" and "bad" don't actually exist.

    Well, if you are unfortunate enough to hurt yourself, how would you describe that feeling? Was it good, or was it bad? Could you really say it was good?

    Let's be honest here, pain is universally bad. We feel pain because something has happened that is in most cases not good for us. Not only for humans, for all animals that experience pain too. This is something we have evolved, and it serves a practical, beneficial purpose. The only difference is that we have named it bad, as we are the only creatures that name things.

    Good and bad often describe the experiences of conscious creatures, experiences that exist. The same way the word "Earth" describes our planet. Would anyone here really argue that the "Earth" doesn't actually exist?
    Last edited by Stickybuds; 2012-02-17 at 01:55 AM.

  6. #26
    For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Newton's third law of physics has a lot to say about morality.

    If you behave wrongly, people will treat you the same way, and vice versa.

  7. #27
    Terms such as "good," "bad," "right" and "wrong" do not stand subject to universal truth conditions at all. Rather, they describe societal conventions and personal preference. Given the same set of facts, some societies or individuals will have a fundamental disagreement about what one ought to do (based on societal or individual norms). What's more, one cannot adjudicate these disagreements using some independent standard of evaluation — the standard will always be societal or personal.
    Quote Originally Posted by foxHeart View Post
    Some people practically beg to be put down. They're so totally ignorant and careless that it's difficult to not comment. If you have the willpower to not insult the garbage you run into during your lfd travels, that's fine, you're the better man. But that doesn't make you the better player. Don't kid yourself.

  8. #28
    The Lightbringer Kevyne-Shandris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Basking in the Light
    Posts
    3,255
    Quote Originally Posted by thebum06 View Post
    Morals are entirely subjective. If they weren't, we wouldn't have such things as wars.
    Wars are caused by mad men usually seeking power.

    They throw morals out the window when convienant to their lust for power (then bring them back to enforce it).
    From the #1 Cata review on Amazon.com: "Blizzard's greatest misstep was blaming players instead of admitting their mistakes. They've convinced half of the population that the other half are unskilled whiners, causing a permanent rift in the community."
    Blizzard's blame game in action: Deleting 6,100+ of Kevyne's posts and threads from the WoW forums.

  9. #29
    Bloodsail Admiral Ishu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    1,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevyne-Shandris View Post
    Wars are caused by mad men usually seeking power.

    They throw morals out the window when convienant to their lust for power (then bring them back to enforce it).
    Perhaps, but there are cultures where they consider other things morally right than we do. There are people who genuinely believe that getting rid of their enemies is morally right because "it will make the world a better place". These people might be mad men, but it still means that morality is not objective.

  10. #30
    LOAD"*",8,1 Fuzzzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Legion of Doom Headquarters
    Posts
    20,321
    Quote Originally Posted by Archangel Tyrael View Post
    I know who is my hater, now.
    hehe. I don't hate anyone!

  11. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by CherryPie View Post
    Terms such as "good," "bad," "right" and "wrong" do not stand subject to universal truth conditions at all.
    If one sets up criteria for these words, they automatically stand subject to truth conditions.

    Moreover, if I start referring to "up" as "down", and begin referring to "down" as "up", does this mean the words "up" and "down" no longer stand subject to universal truth conditions?

  12. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Fuzzzie View Post
    hehe. I don't hate anyone!
    You don't hate, you despise me with the fury of the burning hells.

    But i know why. :X

    ugh... Anyway... couldn't find the link, i regret having voted now -_-

  13. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by thebum06 View Post
    Perhaps, but there are cultures where they consider other things morally right than we do. There are people who genuinely believe that getting rid of their enemies is morally right because "it will make the world a better place". These people might be mad men, but it still means that morality is not objective.
    Odd logic.

    So if there is a large group of people that disagree with the theory of evolution, does that mean the theory of evolution is not objective?

  14. #34
    LOAD"*",8,1 Fuzzzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Legion of Doom Headquarters
    Posts
    20,321
    Quote Originally Posted by Archangel Tyrael View Post
    You don't hate, you despise me with the fury of the burning hells.

    But i know why. :X

    ugh... Anyway... couldn't find the link, i regret having voted now -_-
    Now I'm interested. PM me why if you like. Don't wanna derail this too much.

  15. #35
    Bloodsail Admiral ranku's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    south carolina
    Posts
    651
    considering that morals change from place to place, i say relative
    Quote Originally Posted by ohshift View Post
    Mess with someone's head enough, you can turn a scared little kid into an all powerful bitch.
    only two things are infinite the universe, and human stupidity,
    and i'm not too sure about the universe -Albert Einstein

  16. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Fuzzzie View Post
    Now I'm interested. PM me why if you like. Don't wanna derail this too much.
    okie dokie, won't derail it further! sowwy !

  17. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Stickybuds View Post
    If one sets up criteria for these words, they automatically stand subject to truth conditions.
    ^^^ This.

    People's definition of morality is relative. But once you have a definition, you can determine morality objectively.

  18. #38
    If morals were objective we wouldn't have war.

    This isn't really a question, and the results of the poll are hilarious to me.

  19. #39
    The Lightbringer Kevyne-Shandris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Basking in the Light
    Posts
    3,255
    Quote Originally Posted by Ichimarunico View Post
    If morals were objective we wouldn't have war.
    No.

    Why?

    Because bad men don't have any morals but their own greed.
    From the #1 Cata review on Amazon.com: "Blizzard's greatest misstep was blaming players instead of admitting their mistakes. They've convinced half of the population that the other half are unskilled whiners, causing a permanent rift in the community."
    Blizzard's blame game in action: Deleting 6,100+ of Kevyne's posts and threads from the WoW forums.

  20. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Ichimarunico View Post
    If morals were objective we wouldn't have war.
    This argument doesn't make sense.

    Eg. If science were objective we wouldn't have people who believe in demons

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •