Objective vs Subjective

[FearlessLeader2]

From Abortion--

Stapel:
Especially this part:
quoteFearlessLeader2)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A thing is right or it is wrong, and if it is wrong for one, then it is wrong for everyone
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In my view, this is hilarious nonsense! take it easy: only my view . It is exactly what I think is wrong. The whole principle of individual freedom, which I think is very valuable, is that what is wrong for one, does not need to be wrong for another.
For me this is principle.

Freedom has little to do with the matter. One can have freedom and equal justice. In fact, for all to be free, there MUST be equal justice.

You have to remember that your rights (aka your 'freedom') ends where another's rights, aka 'freedoms' begin. This, too, is axiomatical/principle. For this to be effective, everyone must have the same limits placed on their freedoms. If I can smack you in the head, rape your girlfriend, and take all the money out of your wallet, and just show the cops my 'Superior Rights Citizen ID' and just walk away whistling, then you aren't free at all, are you?

If it is wrong for you to assault, rape, and steal, then why should I be allowed to get away with it?

 

[Dralix]

You sure picked a fine example to show that if something is wrong for one, then it must be wrong for everyone.

 

[Hitro]

I think it doesn't matter if there is an objective reality because humans can only comprehend a subjective reality. Thus all their values, morals and ideas are subjective.

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2
You have to remember that your rights (aka your 'freedom') ends where another's rights, aka 'freedoms' begin. This, too, is axiomatical/principle.

That's hardly axiomatical, in fact that's a highly disputed idea. And although I think so (and maybe you too) that doesn't mean it's the case objectively.

For this to be effective, everyone must have the same limits placed on their freedoms. If I can smack you in the head, rape your girlfriend, and take all the money out of your wallet, and just show the cops my 'Superior Rights Citizen ID' and just walk away whistling, then you aren't free at all, are you?

If it is wrong for you to assault, rape, and steal, then why should I be allowed to get away with it?

Equal justice is a good thing, but don't confuse it with objectivity.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Objectivity does not really exist. It the the non- existent, but hypothetical "view from nowhere". It does not exist outside the human mind. It is merely an absract ideal, like the perfect triangle. It can be approached, but never reached in matters of practice.

 

[stormerne]

Aha... FL2 is back to his old theme. You know my feelings on this already. But I ain't gonna let you put a one-sided view to everyone else.

Both philosophically and practically, it's important to remember one thing: it is impossible to prove objectivity in anything. The closest you can ever get is corroboration, which suffices for the sake of pragmatism.

The same goes for anything absolute, and that includes the notion of so-called "rights", which are nothing more than sets of artificial human constructs that change and even disappear with the shifting times but that we can agree to agree on should we choose.

If it's truly objective it should be susceptible to rigorous proof. And that's something that greater minds than ours have struggled with unsuccessfully.

I have nothing against your perception of reality. It just doesn't accord with mine that's all, and I doubt it ever will. I do object to your foisting you subjective view onto mine under the pretence of objectivity. Why not simply admit it's your subjective view of reality and win the respect of others in the process?

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Because it isn't subjective. It's just plain right. No matter what numerical system you use, 1+1 ends up equalling that system's equivalent of 2. The same applies to right and wrong. In a given set of circumstances, it is always either right or wrong to do a certain thing, no matter who you are. Name the circumstance, and the right or wrong thing to do is obvious, it's also usually the thing you least want to do, but that's beside the point.

If I have to lose my self-respect to gain your respect, then I'll just have to live without your respect.

 

[stormerne]

Fair enough because you don't have it yet!

So you can prove that what's right is always right can you? Same for wrong? Go on then. It's your thread. You have the floor. $20 says you won't do it.

 

[vonork]

What are you trying to say FL2, that this that was quoted from you is correct:

A thing is right or it is wrong, and if it is wrong for one, then it is wrong for everyone

That don't make any sense, acording to that logic if I say religion is wrong that it's wrong for everyone.

However the ex you have don't realy seam to point to that quote but merly saying that a thing that is ok for you is not atomaticly ok for me. & that I agre with.

 

[test_specimen]

FL2, if you simply mean the justice system, then the reality is differnet from what you propose. "Citizens" of a country have different rights than "Non-Citizens". Even within the citizens there is a differentiation: women and minorities have more/less/different rights.

If you mean morals, then it depends on your religion, upbringing, etc. The thread you got this from, the Abortion-Thread, where the definition of "person" played a role, so this is taken out of context. Your freedom ends where another persons freedom is infringed by your actions. If you are not sure, what a person is, you cannot pinpoint a border there. So personal freedom would be, if each woman could decide for herself, based on her moral beliefs.

Also, if you say "if it's wrong for one, it's wrong for everyone" implies that this cannot be reconsidered. Which it can, because moral beliefs have changed and should change over time. They work as a protective mechanism, and when protection can be gained differently, those beliefs can be altered.

 

[EdwardTking]

FL's views are correct in terms of law, mathematics and pure logic.

However his statement doesn't work if one tries to extend it into the realms of the variable reality where for example the right sized shoe for me may not fit you or for our musical tastes.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Edipus Rex (to take license w/your sig, no offense intended)

I do not extend the statement into subjective areas. Much as I would love to enact legislation that calls for the extermination of all persons involved in the making of Swiss cheese, for example, I would never claim it was my right to do so. I am sickened by the stench of this foul abomination, but that is my subjective judgement, and others, hard as it may be for me to understand, actually like the wretched filfth. A similar chain of logic goes into my tolerance of the continued acceptance of jazz as an art form. These are subjective judgements, and do differ from person to person.

OTOH, it is now, was in the past, and shall forever more continue to be, morally wrong to break into someone's home for the purpose of taking from that person anything that the law acknowledges as belonging to them. Society may well degenerate to the point where people subjectively override this objective moral law, but the objective moral law will remain, and it will retain some few adherents who refrain from violating it even though society disagrees with them.

Society changes, what is moral never does. Society learns to tolerate immorality because its leaders are too weak to stand up and say 'No more, the line is drawn here where morality has always drawn it, not over there where you would prefer it.'

Most, if not all of you, feel that this is somehow right, and not at all a bad thing. Your opinions of this however, much like mine, are subjective. A society that decides to tolerate an immoral thing, and modifies its laws accordingly, becomes an immoral society.

The definitions of the words in that sentence are not in dispute, however, and therefore it cannot be objectively argued that an immoral society is a good one, or that its subjective choices are moral.

In short, you compare apples to oranges.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by vonork
What are you trying to say FL2, that this that was quoted from you is correct:

A thing is right or it is wrong, and if it is wrong for one, then it is wrong for everyone

That don't make any sense, acording to that logic if I say religion is wrong that it's wrong for everyone.

If you can prove your statement: 'Religion is wrong.' is true for me, then you HAVE proven it true for everyone else. That is exactly what I am saying.

Originally posted by vonork
However the ex you have don't realy seam to point to that quote but merly saying that a thing that is ok for you is not atomaticly ok for me. & that I agre with.

The example I gave points out the exact opposite: if x is good for me, then x is good for you too, and vice-versa. All are equal, or justice is a myth.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by stormerne
Fair enough because you don't have it yet!

So you can prove that what's right is always right can you? Same for wrong? Go on then. It's your thread. You have the floor. $20 says you won't do it.

So name the circumstance already.

 

[Dralix]

Who decides what is and what is not morally wrong for everyone? You?

Is it morally wrong to call in sick from work if you are really, really tired? What if you are really, really tired because you stayed up until 3:00am playing Civ? Or what if you were at the bar drinking? What if instead of calling in sick you take a vacation day?

Please think carefully before you answer these questions, after all, your answers will affect everyone.

 

[test_specimen]

The problem with your examples is, that their solutions are accepted across different cultures. Even under communism theft was illegal. If you would name some moral issues, that are treated differently in different cultures, your point would not be as clear. Such as abortion, gender specific rights, drug (ab-)use, punishment, suicide, etc. Often those are personal choices, they do not influence the freedom of other people (in some instances)and religion is the main reason for some of the restrictions in those areas.

 

[Akka]

Good and Evil are absolute. That's their perception by humans which is relative.

Objectivity is trying to approach the absolute by reducing the relative. The only absolute that is reachable by a human is logic, as it's a purely mental construction that is not altered by perception.

I would define the Good as free will, and the Bas as restricting free will.

The mess comes when we reach the point where the free will of two persons infringe each other and we have to decide who is right and who is wrong

 

[vonork]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2
If you can prove your statement: 'Religion is wrong.' is true for me, then you HAVE proven it true for everyone else. That is exactly what I am saying.

But moral is based on values, and we have diffrent values so how is anyone suposed to prove anything. Proof can only be given base on some predefined rules we already agre on. Like math, then I can prove that some equation solves into something.

To be able to prove moral we must have the same basic values - and still if we feel we have small difference will bring us to shifting concusions: it's wrong to kill, it's wrong to kill but ok in self defence, it's wrong to kill but ok in self defence and to kill people that have killed(death sentence).

 

[test_specimen]

Originally posted by vonork
and to kill people that have killed(death sentence).

Only in third world countries and the US.

 

[stormerne]

I'm still waiting for your proof.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by stormerne
I'm still waiting for your proof.

I'm still waiting for your example.