Are we fooling ourselves with morals?

[Independent voter]

There is a torrent on the Internet of your favorite TV show, Days Without Lemons. You can wait 7 days and see it legally on local broadcast TV or do you download it for the immediate gratification?

[spinner981]

that was my point... that it may be "hot" to you but not to others

Except hot is a subjective term. Correct and incorrect are not subjective terms. Right and wrong are not subjective terms. Something is either correct or incorrect, there is no in between. Every statement and every belief is either right or wrong, true or false, there is no third option.

[Korlok]

Except hot is a subjective term. Correct and incorrect are not subjective terms. Right and wrong are not subjective terms. Something is either correct or incorrect, there is no in between. Every statement and every belief is either right or wrong, true or false, there is no third option.

Right and wrong in the context of morals and morality are subjective, even if the definitive labels are not.
You don't have to agree with me.

[thatmikeguy]

Whatever someone "believes" about this, children act based on what and why? Go ask your grandparents this question.

[spinner981]

Right and wrong in the context of morals and morality are subjective, even if the definitive labels are not.
You don't have to agree with me.

No, I tend to agree with logic, which disagrees with your claims that have neither evidence nor logical backing.

[MerinPally]

I see the pseudo-intellectual bullshit is coming out quickly today. No point wasting time getting there.

[Korlok]

No, I tend to agree with logic, which disagrees with your claims that have neither evidence nor logical backing.

I'm seeing a trend here. You seem to want to just disagree with anything I post.
Am I getting under your skin by having an opinion?

[breadisfunny]

when 30k kids die in africa every day due to starvation and we dont give a shit about it, id say morality is pretty worthless :/
being indifferent is what we do best

oh boy it's the old "because kids in africa are starving x argument is null and void" argument. how very tiring. perfect way to cop out of having to present an actual argument though.

[spinner981]

I'm seeing a trend here. You seem to want to just disagree with anything I post.
Am I getting under your skin by having an opinion?

I don't remember disagreeing with you out of principle, although that does seem to be what MerinPally over there is doing. If you had any reasoning aside from "This is true because I said so, but you don't have to agree with me." then I might have something to work with concerning a response that uses logic and reason to attempt to prove a point. But I can't make any real response to what you've said.

At least most people try and propose a reason for their unreasonable claims/beliefs. Middle ground fallacies like your own (ie: subjective morality) are obviously illogical, but people seem to still at least place an attempt at arguing for their alleged 'truth', instead of just resorting to "This is the truth!" and leaving it at that.

[Korlok]

I don't remember disagreeing with you out of principle, although that does seem to be what MerinPally over there is doing. If you had any reasoning aside from "This is true because I said so, but you don't have to agree with me." then I might have something to work with concerning a response that uses logic and reason to attempt to prove a point. But I can't make any real response to what you've said.

Here's the difference between me and you I'm thinking. I'm only throwing my position out there from personal experience.
I'm not trying to have an argument to convince anyone that my way is the right way.
You seem to be hellbent on making an argument out of it regardless.

In no way am I trying to engage you in a real discourse. I'm only responding because your personality makes me curious as to your motives.

[spinner981]

Here's the difference between me and you I'm thinking. I'm only throwing my position out there from personal experience.
I'm not trying to have an argument to convince anyone that my way is the right way.
You seem to be hellbent on making an argument out of it regardless.

In no way am I trying to engage you in a real discourse. I'm only responding because your personality makes me curious as to your motives.

From what personal experience would be possibly be able to determine that morality is subjective? Wouldn't that mean it is based on your interpretive opinions, rather than logic? You don't learn what is and isn't logical through personal experience.

If you want to say that you simply believe something, then say that. But you are making a definitive truth claim (ie: "Subjective truth is true"), not merely stating "I believe in subjective morality."

[Korlok]

From what personal experience would be possibly be able to determine that morality is subjective? Wouldn't that mean it is based on your interpretive opinions, rather than logic? You don't learn what is and isn't logical through personal experience.

See, there you go again. Trying to make an argument out of it.
I have already said that I'm only stating my opinion. I'm not trying to argue logic.
But, if you insist, I'm sure there are a dozen people on this forum that would love to debate with you.
Personally, I don't see the benefit in arguing over something with you.

[Garnier Fructis]

Spinner, can you sketch a quick proof that morality is objective?

[spinner981]

Spinner, can you sketch a quick proof that morality is objective?

Well, everything we've ever observed in this universe has been objective, black and white, true or false, right or wrong. Suggesting that something that is real works differently is contrary to the observations of the universe, as well as logic.

See, there you go again. Trying to make an argument out of it.
I have already said that I'm only stating my opinion. I'm not trying to argue logic.
But, if you insist, I'm sure there are a dozen people on this forum that would love to debate with you.
Personally, I don't see the benefit in arguing over something with you.

I wouldn't say the statement that subjective morality has been 'proven' is merely a claim of opinion.

[Korlok]

I think my exact words were, and I quote, 'Both right and wrong have been proven to be rather subjective, at least for me.'

The key part of that would be "at least for me". You took it personally.

[Caliph]

See what happens when people take ethics and philosophy classes. Confusion, doubt, chaos.

Everyone has morals. And they're defined by the situation you're in. While someone who believes in god might bend or break his moral code at some time he doesn't truly lose his morals. The same goes for any other common man. There will come a time when you break your moral code based upon a situation. it doesn't mean you have any more or less morals. it means you dealt with a situation beyond your ability to cover them with your morals.

An inmate doesn't give two shits about the officers and other inmates in the prison with him. But he will adhere to the code of silence and blindness concerning other people's business. While he morally doesn't care about anything but himself he will bend, break, or change his moral code to deal with the situation at hand.

It's how you deal with your moral altercation that matters. Many american soldiers couldn't deal with their moral dilemas when they returned home from iraq/afghanistan. they did things they never thought they would do. Murdering men women and children for some vague war for freedom destroyed their concepts of morality. They couldn't deal with it so they opted out. Almost all of these soldiers left behind letters begging absolution and forgiveness for what they did.

Other soldiers deal with their immoral actions by becoming voices for wounded warriors, or speak out against wars etc.

We're all moral which means we can all also become immoral. How do we deal with ourselves after our morality is affected?

[spinner981]

I think my exact words were, and I quote, 'Both right and wrong have been proven to be rather subjective, at least for me.'

The key part of that would be "at least for me". You took it personally.

Just because something is incorrect doesn't make it personal. Yes, the human mind can be illogical at times, so it makes sense that you might view subjective morality as true under the proper circumstances.

[Korlok]

Just because something is incorrect doesn't make it personal. Yes, the human mind can be illogical at times, so it makes sense that you might view subjective morality as true under the proper circumstances.

I... I can't stop laughing....

[Garnier Fructis]

Well, everything we've ever observed in this universe has been objective, black and white, true or false, right or wrong. Suggesting that something that is real works differently is contrary to the observations of the universe, as well as logic.

This isn't even a proof, much less a good plausibility argument. For one, quantum physics provides a whole wealth of examples where you not only can't know the answer, there isn't an answer.

Example: An electron spin before you measure it. Spin is either up or down. So you might ask, is the spin up or down? The answer is that there is no answer, the question itself is false. This is an example where there is no true or false, A or B. The very process of trying to assign a spin to it before it has been measured will lead to a contradiction with observed reality.

So that's my objection to basing your argument on the observed universe. And here's my argument from the logic angle: There are valid, completely self consistent logic systems which throw away the law of excluded middle. Before you try and argue that they have to be contradictory or inconsistent, realize that to do so you must play by the rules of that logic system. You can't insert the law of excluded middle and then find a contradiction.

[MerinPally]

I... I can't stop laughing....

Now it's becoming obvious why I made the comment I did. He does this on numerous threads, check the post history. I always reply with the same