Attack of The Super Duper Big Picture

[Bootstoots]

You would take away someone's liberty permanently for a subjective value? You're a cold dude.

Without an objective value attached, prison seems like the most unjust of crimes.

How exactly is prison unjust without an objective value? You're acting as though something that is subjective doesn't exist at all, or at least isn't worthy of enforcement. Human life has value because society says it does, and I for one have no problem with society enforcing that value with very stiff penalties, despite its subjectivity.

Of course, value itself is inherently subjective. For instance, finding a lump of gold may be the key to success for somebody living in a place where its value is considered to be high, but a Bushman living in an otherwise uninhabited part of southern Africa would most likely find it worthless.

 

[cgannon64]

How exactly is prison unjust without an objective value? You're acting as though something that is subjective doesn't exist at all, or at least isn't worthy of enforcement. Human life has value because society says it does, and I for one have no problem with society enforcing that value with very stiff penalties, despite its subjectivity.

So there is no difference between your society and a society that has a completely backwards view of value? Say, the Nazis? The only difference between our society and theirs is that we won and they lost?

Obviously we need to believe that we are objectively right or else...what can follow but despair?

Relativism seems to say, quite literally, that might makes right.

 

[superisis]

Might does make right... or perhaps, majority makes right. If a majority views gambling as immoral, it will have a negative value attached to it. If a majority viewed gambling as innocent entertainment, it will have a positive value attached to it. OR for an even better example, look at masturbation. Depending on who/where you ask the question "Is masturbation good?" you will get different answers.

There is no objective value unless you believe in a deity figure who's values and morals are unquestionable. I.e. if you are an atheist, you cannot claim that there is any form of objectivity.

 

[Perfection]

So there is no difference between your society and a society that has a completely backwards view of value? Say, the Nazis? The only difference between our society and theirs is that we won and they lost?

No the difference is that the Nazi society disagrees with my subjective morality. And my subjective morality is what is important.

Obviously we need to believe that we are objectively right or else...what can follow but despair?

You're trying to find a system of morality that works for everyone and every situation. It doesn't exist. Despair happens. That's life.

Relativism seems to say, quite literally, that might makes right.

No, I make right. Might just makes whatever the mighty say is right more influentual.

 

[Ayatollah So]

As I said, there's no such thing as "mattering" in an objective sense, things can only matter to someone.

There's no perspectiveless mattering. Everything that matters matters to someone in particular (and can also matter to others as a consequence). The universe as a whole doesn't have an opinion, and even if it did, we would be free to ignore it.

On the other hand you can exercise objectivity when pondering what matters to you, and doing so typically makes a difference.

 

[cgannon64]

No the difference is that the Nazi society disagrees with my subjective morality. And my subjective morality is what is important.

Subjective morality is obviously less important than objective morality, if it exists. And what is subjective seems to be, by definition, ultimately meaningless.

You're trying to find a system of morality that works for everyone and every situation. It doesn't exist. Despair happens. That's life.

Well, I think it does, and I think that despair can be avoided.

No, I make right. Might just makes whatever the mighty say is right more influentual.

So, whatever the individual says goes. But, the individual is at the mercy of the state, because the state is more powerful.

Therefore, whoever is most powerful, in reality, controls and enforces morality. How can you advocate that?

superisis: No, I think athiests can beleive in an objective reality of sorts. They can beleive that pure reason leads to the same viewpoint, and so, different subjective moralities only exist because some people are less reasonable than others.

 

[Perfection]

Subjective morality is obviously less important than objective morality, if it exists.

But there is no means to determine objective morality. It's just non-existant.

And what is subjective seems to be, by definition, ultimately meaningless.

But it still has meaning to those who use it.

Well, I think it does, and I think that despair can be avoided.

That seems rather naive cgannon. Despair is a fundamental part of life. You may not like it, but that's how it is.

So, whatever the individual says goes. But, the individual is at the mercy of the state, because the state is more powerful.

Therefore, whoever is most powerful, in reality, controls and enforces morality. How can you advocate that?

I don't advocate that, it's just the way things are.

 

[punkbass2000]

What I mean is:

If you don't believe in something all knowing then it is all relative. If god aint your boss, you are your own boss. If you're not responcible to God then you're only responcible to yourself. I'm not saying that people of faith are more moral than atheists. Being moral is about having standards (whether you set them or if your god set them is irrelevant) and following them.

All I say is that we have no great way of knowing anything. All the knowlege of an atheist is based on his assumption that he exists. Then he's basically trusting to his 5 senses.

Let me give you an example. Have you seen "A Beautiful Mind"?

Well Nash thought he saw those three individuals; he thought they existed even though they didn't. Well, how did he find out they didn't exist? He was told by all they other people he thought existed. That was his view. How did we, the audience, find out that they didn't exist? We got the objective/all knowing/god view. We were shown sceens were Nash argued with himself, etc. But lets you are stranded on one island. You see two other individuals on this island, but both of them deny the existance of the other... So you ask yourself, are there three people on this island, or two or just one. You will never know. Infact noone will ever no, because noone's way of knowing is better than anyone elses. Thus without the belief that there is someone/thing that knows it all, all you have is relative truth.

same with morals: Noone says that one set of morals are lesser than another. Noone can claim that, without referral to god. Perhaps a collective set of morals, but then ofcourse that will change over time, so one could not say that anyone is immoral.

Ex. an atheist could not claim that Hitler was immoral. He could claim that Hitler was immoral if responcible to the atheist's set of morals. He could claim that Hitler was immoral if responcible to the atheist's society's set of morals. He could claim that Hitler was immoral if responcible to Hitler's society's set of morals. But he couldn't claim that Hitler was immoral to Hitler's set of morals or to an general set of morals (since, to an atheist, such a set of morals doesn't exist).

Johan

If I follow you correctly, you're saying that without an objective definer ("God", let's say), there is nothing but subjectivity. YEt, it would seem to me, your argument against me is the inverse, insomuch as you appear to claim that since I believe in subjectivity (to one degree or another), I must not believe in god. However, this is fallacious. It would be akin to saying that since all fish swim, all things that swim are fish.

 

[punkbass2000]

Zuh?

You plan to be god, whilst I already am.

 

[punkbass2000]

No, it's not.

It certainly is. You present only two options. Either adhere to the tenets of objective morality or abandon them and release the prisoners. Surely you can see that there are many, many other possibilities

How can you justify any laws without declaring an inherent value of certain things or beings?

If one believes nothing matters, what need has one to justify anything? I might agree not to put people in jail in the first place, but there's certainly no need for me release them from jail either in order to retain consistency.

 

[Perfection]

You plan to be god, whilst I already am.

God doesn't exist. I don't plan to become god, just the universe. There's a difference, ya know.

 

[punkbass2000]

Either way, I still beat you.

 

[Perfection]

Either way, I still beat you.

Incorrect, I beat a nonexistant entity

 

[Narz]

I will beat you both at chess. Chess is part of the universe. Therefore, I am God.

 

[punkbass2000]

WE should find online four player chess.