Akka
Moody old mage.
Go read every single of my previous posts in this thread.
Objective vs Subjective
- Thread starter FearlessLeader2
- Start date
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
Obviously you have to use some judgement in meting out punishments. A $100,000 fine to a day laborer IS crippling/maiming a person, just financially instead of physically.
Likewise, airing the dirtiest of all laundry a person has could be the social equivalent of killing them, if it makes them an utter pariah.
Judgement. Exercise what little you have. If you haven't any, stop posting in my topics. Please.
Likewise, airing the dirtiest of all laundry a person has could be the social equivalent of killing them, if it makes them an utter pariah.
Judgement. Exercise what little you have. If you haven't any, stop posting in my topics. Please.
Nothing is objective. Everything you do or think is subjected to your own personal interpretaion of a given situation.
This is just trying to impose one interpretation onto everybody.
This allows for no cultural, religious or juducial diversity. There is one way and only one way...
Here's a simple one. Drinking age. Here in Australia its 18. In the US its 21. Which is right and which is wrong? Another example would be age of consent 16 vs 18.
Thats exactly what they are. From dictionary.com
The definition of Good . The one I wanted to highlight is 1) Being positive or desirable in nature; not bad or poor. The desirability of something is entirely relative to the person and is in no way absolute. Good is not defined as an absolute in any way shape or form.
The definition of Bad . Still no mention of an absolute measure. There is however mention of unfavourable, unpleasant and disagreeable, all of which are also relative to the person.
This is just trying to impose one interpretation onto everybody.
This allows for no cultural, religious or juducial diversity. There is one way and only one way...
Here's a simple one. Drinking age. Here in Australia its 18. In the US its 21. Which is right and which is wrong? Another example would be age of consent 16 vs 18.
Thats exactly what they are. From dictionary.com
The definition of Good . The one I wanted to highlight is 1) Being positive or desirable in nature; not bad or poor. The desirability of something is entirely relative to the person and is in no way absolute. Good is not defined as an absolute in any way shape or form.
The definition of Bad . Still no mention of an absolute measure. There is however mention of unfavourable, unpleasant and disagreeable, all of which are also relative to the person.
Akka
Moody old mage.
Ok.
I used some excessive examples to get the point.
Since it seems that your superior judgement was unable to understand this, I'll get to less obviously one-sided examples.
How about choosing between a fine of 150 $ or a day of restriction ?
I can bet that, depending on their own ideas, there is many people who would choose either one or another.
And what if they don't give a sh*t about being humiliated in public ?
Then it's no more a "social killing".
Hey, but then it's dependent on the person that receives it. Which is the word for that ? I think it's "relative", isn't it ?
Sultan Bhargash
Trickster Reincarnated
Does your copy of the Bible include the key Jesusical phrase "Judge not, lest ye be judged?" oh spanker of the unaborted?
Two people commit the same crime, in fact they are accomplices, and are to be punished with the sentencing options of a $100,000 fine or 6 months prison .
Perp1 is a Billionaire and it would cost much more than $100,000 to stay out of the office for 6 months.
Perp2 is a clerk that earns $15,000 a year.
They have committed the same crime, which penalty do you apply?
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
Equal punishment for equal crime. If both are to suffer greatly for their crime, imprison the billionaire, and fine the clerk. If relative slaps on the wrist are adequate, the reverse. Once again, judgement is key. That is why we have judges.
nihilistic
Intergalatic Delivery Boy
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
"There are no facts, only interpretations."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
"There are no facts, only interpretations."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Now explain what that means nihilistic 
I find it amusing that your username is nihilistic but you quote Nietzsche.
Gawd, haven't the last dregs of rationalism died already.
And for the record, the system of utilitarianism you mentioned lies much closer to Bentham's idea. Mill on the other hand understood that it is a fallacy to purely use 'the greatest amount' as it becomes quite easy for the minority to suffer at the hands of the majority.
I find it amusing that your username is nihilistic but you quote Nietzsche.
Gawd, haven't the last dregs of rationalism died already.
And for the record, the system of utilitarianism you mentioned lies much closer to Bentham's idea. Mill on the other hand understood that it is a fallacy to purely use 'the greatest amount' as it becomes quite easy for the minority to suffer at the hands of the majority.
Ayatollah So
the spoof'll set you free
Since even we "absolutists" agree that moral correctness depends on the details of context, and since it is virtually impossible to describe a situation in sufficient detail, it's going to be hard to settle this dispute by appealing to examples. Even if you refer to specific historical examples, in many cases vital facts are simply unknown. Moral questions are often hard to decide -- which in itself doesn't prove anything one way or the other.
Many other questions are difficult and controversial without getting called subjective. What is the role of bacteria in arthritis? What decided the Vietnam war? How did human beings evolve? Note that as the questions come closer to the hot buttons of passion, it gets harder and harder to convince people even if you have plenty of evidence. And moral questions are pretty hot.
Akka thinks relativism leads to might-makes-right. I wouldn't go that far, but it's at least consistent with might-makes-right. Mussolini is a famous example. The funny(?) part is, relativists can't say that Mussolini was mistaken -- those were his values, after all -- although they can still say he was (by their standards) morally wrong to do what he did.
Many other questions are difficult and controversial without getting called subjective. What is the role of bacteria in arthritis? What decided the Vietnam war? How did human beings evolve? Note that as the questions come closer to the hot buttons of passion, it gets harder and harder to convince people even if you have plenty of evidence. And moral questions are pretty hot.
Akka thinks relativism leads to might-makes-right. I wouldn't go that far, but it's at least consistent with might-makes-right. Mussolini is a famous example. The funny(?) part is, relativists can't say that Mussolini was mistaken -- those were his values, after all -- although they can still say he was (by their standards) morally wrong to do what he did.
nihilistic
Intergalatic Delivery Boy
Originally posted by Pragma
Now explain what that means nihilistic
It means that outside of mathematics, nothing can really be proven. For example, you really cannot disprove that you are not dreaming right now. Known assumptions/lies in a way are better than convictions in a sense that at least you know that it may not be true. For what really is a conviction but an unfounded assumtion?
Many people consider Nietzsche a nihilist. But just to be clear, I am not neccesarily a nihilist.
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
The law-breakers' perceptions of their punishments vary, as described above. Therefore a judge is needed to make sure that each receives an equally perceived punishment. If each man feels equally punished, then each has received equal punishment for their crime. It's up to the judge to make sure this happens. Or at least, that's how justice is supposed to work...in reality, money talks, and honesty walks.Originally posted by Dralix
Isn't this the exact opposite of what you are trying to say in the first place? That everything is objective? That what is right for one is right for everyone? "Judgement" as you call it is subjective, is it not?
Dralix
Killer of threads
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2001
- Messages
- 2,407
Originally posted by FearlessLeader2
The law-breakers' perceptions of their punishments vary, as described above. Therefore a judge is needed to make sure that each receives an equally perceived punishment. If each man feels equally punished, then each has received equal punishment for their crime. It's up to the judge to make sure this happens. Or at least, that's how justice is supposed to work...in reality, money talks, and honesty walks.
Still not seeing how this isn't subjective.
