Objective vs Subjective

[Double Barrel]

Interesting debate.

If my child is hungry and I have no prospect of obtaining money, what is the greater "immorality"? Stealing to feed your child or letting him die from starvation?

Stealing could be considered universally "wrong", but I would argue that doing nothing to stop your child from starving to death would be a greater "wrong".

As someone else mentioned, I don't think humans are capable of true objectivity...our perceptions are our realities, and our ideas of "right" and "wrong" are subjective to our own personal realities.

 

[stormerne]

In a given set of circumstances, it is always either right or wrong to do a certain thing, no matter who you are.

The onus is on you to prove it, not on me to give you examples, and a proof will need more than an example. Are you so scared of your lack of philosophical rigour that you are not brave enough to push out the boat of rational thought lest you be found out?

 

[Henrique]

In a given set of circumstances, it is always either right or wrong to do a certain thing, no matter who you are.

But the fact is that in reality you never get to understand and point all these circunstances, and therefore all the discussion becomes strictly theoric. You probably agree that killing someone is (at least) generally wrong but you can´t really guarantee that you will never kill, can you? I think there´s even a mathematican theory about the matter, "Theory of Chaos" or something alike.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Double Barrel
Interesting debate.

If my child is hungry and I have no prospect of obtaining money, what is the greater "immorality"? Stealing to feed your child or letting him die from starvation?

Stealing could be considered universally "wrong", but I would argue that doing nothing to stop your child from starving to death would be a greater "wrong".

As someone else mentioned, I don't think humans are capable of true objectivity...our perceptions are our realities, and our ideas of "right" and "wrong" are subjective to our own personal realities.

Ah! Finally a moral dillemna!

The hierarchy of sins, aka Moral Law.

It is better to maim than kill.
It is better to wound than maim.
It is better to restrain than wound.
It is better to fine than restrain.
It is better to reprimand than fine.
It is best to do no harm at all.

This list is based on the concept that whatever produces the best possible outcome for the greatest number of people is best, and that those outcomes are ranked the same as this list.

IE If an action kills 15, but an alternative wounds 1,500,000,000, then the second is best.

When forced to choose between two bad things due to uncontrollable circumstances, one chooses the best available choice.

'Fining' the greengrocer for his lack of charity is better than 'killing', so you feed your kid.

 

[CurtSibling]

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

Prepare for a long wait.

 

[cgannon64]

I feel like I just wandered into the end of an argument.

 

[vonork]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2
The hierarchy of sins, aka Moral Law.

It is better to maim than kill.
It is better to wound than maim.
It is better to restrain than wound.
It is better to fine than restrain.
It is better to reprimand than fine.
It is best to do no harm at all.

This list is based on the concept that whatever produces the best possible outcome for the greatest number of people is best, and that those outcomes are ranked the same as this list.

But who desided that tha is right? To be able to use this hierarchy to solve moral dilemas we must first say that they are true to all.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by vonork
But who desided that tha is right? To be able to use this hierarchy to solve moral dilemas we must first say that they are true to all.

Ok, then...one at a time:

It is better to maim than kill.

A maimed individual can change his ways, a dead one cannot.
A maimed indivdiual may recover, dead is forever.
Maimed is clearly better than dead.

It is better to wound than maim.

Wounds are far easier to recover from than maiming.
Wounding is clearly better than maiming.

It is better to restrain than wound.

Restraints can be released, as can prisoners, and do no physical harm. Wounds are physical harm by definition.
Restraining is clearly better than wounding.

It is better to fine than restrain.

A free person can finish paying a fine and thereafter live his life as he chooses, a restrained person cannot act outside the boundaries of his restraints.
Fining is clearly better than restraining.

It is better to reprimand than fine.

A reprimand is a mild psychological slap that can be forgotten or better still learned from, a fine is a possibly serious financial burden that could affect the person for years.

Reprimanding is clearly better than fining.

It is best to do no harm at all.

Dispute this one at the peril of your credibility.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by stormerne
The onus is on you to prove it, not on me to give you examples, and a proof will need more than an example. Are you so scared of your lack of philosophical rigour that you are not brave enough to push out the boat of rational thought lest you be found out?

I'm not even sure you have a point here, Stormerne. I asked you to give me a challenge, and gave you carte blanche to make it as complex or as simple as you wanted, and I am accused of cowardice?

Like, totally non sequitir, dude.

 

[Akka]

Though I don't like mixing morality and maths, and though I'm on the side of "morality is absolute", I wish to play the Devil's advocate here.

Restraints can be released, as can prisoners, and do no physical harm. Wounds are physical harm by definition.
Restraining is clearly better than wounding.

What would you prefer : a bullet in the thigh or a 20-years sentence in prison ?

A free person can finish paying a fine and thereafter live his life as he chooses, a restrained person cannot act outside the boundaries of his restraints.
Fining is clearly better than restraining.

What would you prefer : a 100 000 $ fine, or be jailed for one day ?

A reprimand is a mild psychological slap that can be forgotten or better still learned from, a fine is a possibly serious financial burden that could affect the person for years.

Reprimanding is clearly better than fining.

What would you prefer : a 5 $ fine, or being yelled at and humiliated in the middle of your office with all your coworker looking ?

 

[nihilistic]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2
... on the concept that whatever produces the best possible outcome for the greatest number of people is best ...

This is approximately a rough draft of John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism

However, you probably would not like certain implications of utilitarianism.

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2

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

Ugh more of your "moral absolutism".

Here's one, if it was wrong for Saddam to wage war on Iran will the US be wrong when we do it?

I don't mind the idea of moral absolutism as long as they are my morals people are forced to. Therefore, it is wrong for you to even debate abortion rights or insinuate that abortion should be illegal. It is wrong if I did it, its wrong when you do it.

 

[Dralix]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2
This list is based on the concept that whatever produces the best possible outcome for the greatest number of people is best, and that those outcomes are ranked the same as this list.

IE If an action kills 15, but an alternative wounds 1,500,000,000, then the second is best.

Not that I agree with your logic, but this doesn't follow. You say the best possible outcome for the greatest number of people is the best. Well that would be the 6 billion minus 15 who are neither killed nor wounded, wouldn't it?

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2

When forced to choose between two bad things due to uncontrollable circumstances, one chooses the best available choice.

'Fining' the greengrocer for his lack of charity is better than 'killing', so you feed your kid.

These are hardly uncontrollable circumstances, and you just gave the green light for people to steal. Hardly legal or moral if you ask me.

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2

I'm not even sure you have a point here, Stormerne. I asked you to give me a challenge, and gave you carte blanche to make it as complex or as simple as you wanted, and I am accused of cowardice?

Like, totally non sequitir, dude.

Stormerne is a bit wiser than all this, that's all. Give you a challenge? Challenge us, why don't you. The rape your girlfriend example from post one is pretty ridiculous. I'll try you- was it okay to drop the A bomb on Japan? What if they had the A-bomb, and knew that if they dropped it on us, it would save many Japanese lives? Ridiculous right?

Stormerne, like myself, and precious few other posters in this forum, refuses to see things categorized in black and white. Because that teaches nobody anything, though it usually leads to people being killed.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by Antonius Block
Stormerne, like myself, and precious few other posters in this forum, refuses to see things categorized in black and white. Because that teaches nobody anything, though it usually leads to people being killed.

Though I do agree on the danger of categorization and oversimplification, I wish also to point that if good and bad are relatives to the person, then if someone truly think that anything benefitting him is "good", then he's more or less morally allowed to do all what he wants.

And then it's up to "might makes right".

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

That's what Fearless is getting at, I think. Might makes right.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by Antonius Block
That's what Fearless is getting at, I think. Might makes right.

Well, AFAIK, he's saying there is absolute good and evil.
So it's the opposite.

"might makes right" is when good and evil are considered relatives, as it's the strongest that impose his values, hence making him right.

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

You think Fearless would withstand a real revelation from God about absolute good or evil? The guy's rhetoric is absolutist but there's a wink under all of it- right wing, Christian, USA uber alles, which just so happens to have all the might at the moment, makes the absolute right.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by Antonius Block
You think Fearless would withstand a real revelation from God about absolute good or evil? The guy's rhetoric is absolutist but there's a wink under all of it- right wing, Christian, USA uber alles, which just so happens to have all the might at the moment, makes the absolute right.

I was just refering to FL2 to say that he believes in absolute Good and Evil, that's all.

And I said why Good and Evil ARE absolutes and not relatives. Because a moral that is relative leads to "might makes right", which is contradictory with the very idea of moral values, that are precisely to separate the right from the might.

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

So you believe in absolutes Akka?