Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Lab Assistant
#126 Old 7th May 2010 at 9:08 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Xunixeon
*Pours sh*t into the washing basin*

Ivan, do you want to wash in that sh*t? It's natural for pigs.




According to Nekowolf, fakepeeps7, etc., we are all animals, so enjoy everyone in washing in Xunixeon's wash basin. I am alien, troll... I am not human (animal).

Abandoned account...
Advertisement
Scholar
#127 Old 7th May 2010 at 9:17 AM
Ivan. Shut up. Just. Shut up. You clearly have no grasping of the concept. You have yet to refute it, instead, you just posted stupid, nonsensical shit.

This is not a hard idea to understand. We are part of this Earth. We contribute to the ecosystems. We require sustenance and sleep to survive. We are organic. We have bodily processes. We are birthed in some way, we live, and we die. We can be injured, and we can succumb to disease. All of that is not exclusive to us; it is found in every species on our planet. Not one exception. That makes us animals.

If you want to continue to disagree, at least show some level of intellect and refute that with an actual argument. Otherwise, if you wish to continue with your bullshit, just shut the hell up. You are not contributing, you are just being a pest.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Instructor
Original Poster
#128 Old 7th May 2010 at 10:06 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Xunixeon
*Pours sh*t into the washing basin*

Ivan, do you want to wash in that sh*t? It's natural for pigs.


I once raised pigs--they are very clean animals. If given enough space, which mine were, they will make a bedroom area, which they tend and freshen every day, as well as a potty area as far from their living space as possible. They lay in the mud only when they are very hot and are trying to cool off. They also have a good sense of humor and play pranks on each other.

Oh, but back on point--I think we should all focus on those who make substantive posts with points they back up. I haven't contributed here for a few days as it is exam week and I am buried under a pile of papers, but have enjoyed reading the well-though-out arguments put forth by the majority.

(And I think I'll start another thread for the IVF discussion--seems to be some interest there)
world renowned whogivesafuckologist
retired moderator
#129 Old 7th May 2010 at 10:42 AM
Nekowolf, while you are welcome to disagree with ivan's points (I disagree with most of 'em myself), you need to chill. Be nice, be courteous, and don't be insulting - or don't post.

my simblr (sometimes nsfw)

“Dude, suckin’ at something is the first step to being sorta good at something.”
Panquecas, panquecas e mais panquecas.
Scholar
#130 Old 7th May 2010 at 10:52 AM Last edited by Nekowolf : 7th May 2010 at 11:20 AM.
As much as it burns me up inside like the flames of Muspelheim, I reluctantly apologize to Oaktree and Ivan...although it does not change my opinions in any way.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Scholar
#131 Old 7th May 2010 at 2:14 PM
Sorry to go back in the thread, but it'll bring the debate back on topic, and I seem to have missed responding to this, I think.

Quote: Originally posted by Oaktree
The fetus is something that spontaneously develops sentience. It will become sentient so long as it isn't killed first.

I don't see how that makes a difference. It's not sentient. Whether it will become sentient, spontaneously or not, doesn't change the fact that it isn't sentient.

Quote: Originally posted by Oaktree
That's because receiving that medication does not kill sentient life. It does kill bacteria, but bacteria are not sentient. Abortion kills something that will, through the course of nature, develop sentience.

Yes, so the real issue is the potentiality and sentience of the embryo. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether somebody is responsible for their pregnancy and should have known better or deserved it or whatever - those are all irrelevant.


Quote: Originally posted by Oaktree
Not being aware of a wrong doesn't make it less of a wrong. You could be deprived of something and have it impact your quality of life (or, in this case, your existence) without realizing it is something you should have had.

I fail to see how anyone could be deprived when they aren't even being. If you weren't ever able to sense your quality of life, how can your quality of life be impacted?
Scholar
#132 Old 7th May 2010 at 9:33 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Nekowolf
1. And I don't think anything is ever, now, forever, and always has been, "morally wrong," because morality is a invention of human intellect, and human knowledge.


I have said before that I see morality as outlining those things that are beneficial or detrimental to life and rationality. It is objectively true that killing takes a rational life, therefore it is detrimental to life and morally wrong. The same detrimental effects happen whether it is applied to humans or to other species. When a dolphin is killed senselessly, it is wrong. If there are alien species out there, it would be just as detrimental to them, therefore making it wrong. Either I'm not explaining this properly, or you're just not understanding what I'm trying to say. There are certain things that are detrimental to the well-being of a species. In a broad sense, the same things are detrimental to every species. Every species requires living members to propagate. Murdering them makes it hard for the species to propagate. Every species requires food to survive. Stealing food from an individual makes it harder for it to survive. For various reasons, consensual sexual encounters are better for every sexually capable species, meaning that rape is detrimental and wrong.



Quote:
If for all of man, a specific action is wrong, then one situation happens, just one, that justifies that action as a right, your entire argument is null, because it no longer has objectivity. Because it has gone against its own precedence.


Can you give me an example of this? While showing that it is, in fact, right and not the lesser of two wrongs? Even if there is theoretically a possibility for this, if it has no support in reality, it is not true.

Quote:
The context taken by your concept of morality is poor, and deprived of the simple fact that as a species are an emotional species. Your concept turns a blind eye to subjectivity. It is a flawed concept. It is, in my opinion, a concept of egotistical bullshit.


We can be emotional, but our emotions do not reveal truth. Even if you stumble onto a truth through emotionality, you can't know that it is true without using logical and rationality. Emotion is a personal thing; logic is universal. In order for your views to line up with reality, they have to fit within the universal reality shared by all.

Quote:
2. Yes you can be subjective! You are human! Humans ARE subjective! It is in our very nature! The only thing objective is that you are human, and that you are here in some context. And reality IS subjective! We can see a death, and we can agree that someone has died. But! We may disagree on the nature of death! We may disagree on what death entails! We may disagree on what is the afterlife! We may disagree that there even is an afterlife! All of this is part of reality. Even the concept of reality is subjective. Yes, shocking, isn't it, that there are arguments over what reality is. Over what life is.


The phrase itself "you can be subjective" has little meaning, but the closest approximation I can come to is that you are saying that my existence is subjective. The fact of my existence is not subjective because I would not be able to ponder it if I did not exist. From your perspective, you don't know that I truly exist, but, if you think that I don't, you are simply wrong.

Disagreement does not mean subjectivity. Taking your example of afterlife, if there is an afterlife, then one arguing against it is wrong. If there isn't, then one arguing for it is wrong. If it only exists for one who believes in it, the one arguing against it is still wrong because it does exist for others, meaning that it does exist. Do you truly think that every case where two people disagree means that both are right? If I told you that the sky is green (under conditions of normal daylight), does the mere fact that I choose to believe this make it right? It doesn't. It means that I am deluded and wrong.

Arguments over the nature of reality do not make reality subjective. Reality has shown that it follows rules pretty closely, but that we simply don't know what all of those rules are. The fact that we don't have a grand unified theory of physics that shows us where all of the inconsistencies in physics come from does not mean that the nature of reality does not follow rules. It means that we haven't figured out what those rules are.

Quote:
What you have been doing is picking one specific objective element in a situation, and using it, saying "This is objective, this is my proof!" while ignoring everything subjective about that situation. Like murder, you take the act of murder as objective. Yes! The act of murder is objective! But you take it, and say, "it is wrong, this is objective." NO! It is not objective! Because I could argue this specific case was not wrong! That it does have justification, and that some could perceive it as a right, just as much as others could perceive it as a wrong. And THAT is contextualization! You simply stand there, and say "No it is always wrong, and if anyone disagree, they are false, incorrect." That is not context! That is arrogance!


You would have to have a logical reason for why it is not objectively wrong, though. My basis for saying it is wrong is that it negatively impacts a life. If you want to argue logically, you have to have a basis for saying "in this instance it isn't wrong". You say that people disagreeing about whether it is right or wrong is contextualization, but then you say that me saying that it is wrong is not contextualization. Am I not one of the people arguing that it is wrong? I am simply providing a backbone to my argument, rather then saying "well, shucks, my momma told me it's wrong, so it must be!". The fact that you think I am wrong about this shows that you think you are right? Doesn't that make you arrogant as well, based on your definition of it?

Quote:
Even the consequences are not absolute, lest you believe in a divine plan. The past is the past, true. The present is the present, also true. But the future is vast with many possibilities. What we do now, in the present, will change the future in one of many possibilities. You are ignoring the future consequences, the future which is dynamic. Your view that encompasses only the past and present is a shallow one.


If our actions in the present affect the future, how is the future so dynamic? Everything that is in the present can be traced back to something that happened in the past. I don't think that reality is entirely deterministic because I think that the choices one makes are free from causality, but there is a good case that can be made that even the nature of choice is an illusion. Probability is an illusion, though. When you choose to flip a coin, for instance, your brain sends a signal to your muscles. The strength and speed of that signal is dependent on the conditions within your body. The nervous impulse is translated based on these conditions and kinetic energy is translated to the coin. There may be a breeze that throws off the motion of the coin as it flips, but this breeze is due to disturbances in the air caused by other past events. The motion of the coin is regulated by the physical laws of reality. The laws of reality say that its torque will cause it to flip so many times and gravity will drag it down. You don't know how it will land because your brain is not capable of that level of observation and calculation, but the way in which it will land is determined once you have sent that impulse.

Quote:
And once again, I repeat, your concepts are dogmatic. And dangerous. Because throughout the course of history, there are those societies which used such concepts, that all others are wrong, to impose some of the worst, most horrific, events. You may say, in retrospect, they were wrong. But this does not change the fact that they believed they were right! That they believed their morals were to be authoritative of everyone. Just like you are arguing now. That there are morals that all should follow, and those who don't are wrong, those who disagree are false.


Atomic weaponry is dangerous in the same manner as objective morality is, but that doesn't negate their existence. Further, these things are only dangerous in the wrong hands. It's like the saying "guns don't kill, people do". Objective morality in-itself is not dangerous; it is only when those who are wrong misinterpret it to use it to their own ends that it plays a part in being dangerous. Even in that case, they are using a misinterpretation, meaning that they are not actually using objective morality. And ultimately, it is the people who are doing the wrong, not the morality itself. The benefits of medicine are not reduced by the antics of a quack using drugs that are not considered part of the body of medicine. In the same manner, objective morality is not made wrong by those who claim to follow it, but are in fact wrong about it. The fact that they believed they were right does not change the fact that they were wrong.

I am arguing that there are morals that all should follow, and that those who don't are wrong. Though I wouldn't say that "those who disagree are false" because "person" does not have truth values. Person is not an idea, but a concrete object. It can exist or not, but only facts can have truth values. But I'm just being nit-picky about you grammar now.

Quote:
. And lastly...

I have supported myself plenty of times! I am sick of your god damn bullshit! All you have been doing is lording over my opinions, dictating! I am fucking tired of hearing your asinine excuses that "oh, I used logic!" Yeah? Well a lot of fucking people used logic to justify the worst atrocities! And they thought their logic was pretty damn sound, too! Sporadic, my bleeding ass! You either refuse to follow my logic, or you just feel so god damn superior that I could not possibly be accurate! I'll grant the benefit of a doubt and go with the former. You have not backed up your logic with infallible logical arguments because I have torn them down! Your logic is no better than mine, and I am sick of you sitting there and presiding that my logic is flawed, ergo, I am incorrect! Pull your head out of your ass, o' mistress!

I'm done with you! It's obvious you have no interest aside from sitting upon thine throne, judging in fallacy, superior because of your greater logic capabilities devoid of emotion or bias; a goddess among men, human no more. After all, you are "probably right" because, god forbid, I dare be equaled to you in my own logic regarding my opinions, which are obviously much more flawed and simple than your otherworldly knowledge.


I'm not dictating, I'm debating. In case you didn't realize, every instance of me making an assertion using the word "you" was made in the general and ideal sense. I am arguing that this is what is morally correct, but I'm not actually forcing you to do anything about it. I can say that you're wrong, but I don't see how that's going to stop you. How is my argument any more dictatorial than your own, considering that you are also trying to assert an objective truth? You don't call it that, but any time anything is asserted as fact, it is objective because that is the nature of fact. You were asserting that I am wrong and you are right. In your mind, that is objective fact. Turnabout's fair play, so I could just as easily say that you are dictatorial, arrogant, and every other thing you have called me. But I haven't because we are engaging in a debate and the whole point of debate is to claim that a particular position is correct.

Every time that you think you have torn down my arguments, I have pointed out why you haven't and/or torn down the logic you used to try to tear down my logic. As I stated in that last post to doddibot, however, there is no way for either of us to perfectly argue our perspectives because there are always assumptions that the other person could point to and disagree with. This in itself does not make reality subjective, though; it means that our method of perceiving reality is flawed.
Lab Assistant
#133 Old 7th May 2010 at 10:04 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Nekowolf
As much as it burns me up inside like the flames of Muspelheim, I reluctantly apologize to Oaktree and Ivan...although it does not change my opinions in any way.


Apology accepted. It's not nice to hear words (in almost every sentence) such as sh*t, a*s...
That tells us much about culture (yes, it decays).

Conclusion - abortion is natural, we are animals.

...and, I think that Oaktree really doesn't deserve insolence.

Abandoned account...
Scholar
#134 Old 7th May 2010 at 11:03 PM
Quote: Originally posted by ivan17
Conclusion - abortion is natural, we are animals.

Probably, but this doesn't tell us if abortion is right or wrong.
Scholar
#135 Old 7th May 2010 at 11:14 PM
I will not get sucked back into this. This is my last comment on the subject. After this, I'm done; you seem to have no interesting in paying attention to what I am saying, and prefer to elevate your own conclusions as irrefutable using the circular logic that if morals are objective and universal, and you believe in those morals (despite your claims that you "may be" wrong, but do you really think you are? I doubt it), your conclusion cannot be wrong, because you believe in something that is universal and objective.

Throughout the whole freaking thing, pretty much the only real "evidence," I guess you could say, has been, "well I used logic to come to a conclusion." Not once have you given any evidence into how morality is objective, set in stone, unchangeable. You've pretty much just said, "this is so," and when confronted with your position, "because my logic came to that conclusion." That is not evidence. Logic is not always objective, an when discussing philosophical issues such as morality, it is generally subjective; it's a process that involves accumulated individual knowledge, emotional context, and personal opinion.

This is not like science or math. Math is objective, regardless, obviously. The scientific method is a method which, hopefully, tries to provide objectivity. This is not always the case, as some skirt around the method to try to prove their preconceived results.

When you discuss something like morality, something that falls into the realms of philosophy, objectivity breaks down. You can say, killing is wrong, regardless. It can never be justified enough to switch from a wrong, to a right. And you could argue, using your logic, it is because you are taking a life. Now let's say, for the sake of argument, I was a veteran of Iraq or Afghanistan. I could argue that I believe you are wrong; that killing can be justified, and in some contexts, can become a right. And I am still using logic; it is just my logic is different, because unlike yourself (for the sake of argument, of course), I was out in the field, and I had to kill to survive for my own life. My experience as changed my outlook, has changed my logic, to reach a new conclusion that, otherwise, I may have agreed on. Because I have experienced something you have not. This is evidence, this is proof, that logic can be subjective.

The reason I said you are dictating over my opinions, is because of opinions like this:
Quote: Originally posted by Oaktree
I have said before that I could be wrong. But I'm pointing out that my logic is more sound than yours is.

No, it is not. You are not even expressing at an opinion in this point. You are expressing it as a fact. Or how about this?

Quote: Originally posted by Oaktree
It's nothing personal, but your argument is not built in fundamental principles.

You do not know this, yet you are expressing it, again, as a fact. I do have my own principles. And I am arguing, in part, on those principles. Have I adequately expressed those principles, if at all? Perhaps not. But that does not give you the right to assume about me. And that is what you have just done; assumed about what my principles are, then stated, as a fact, that I am not building my argument on those principles. Or further back.

Quote: Originally posted by Oaktree
You are ignoring the possibility of taking responsibility and raising the child that occurs due to the pregnancy.

I was never ignoring that. That was a flaw in my argument you made. I never ignored it, I simply disagreed with your position. Plus there were the implications that you made that I said or believed that people with terminal illnesses cannot lead happy lives and would be better off dead. Something I never stated nor believe; what I said was, some may consider that. Some may think that, about themselves.

You are not as good as you may consider yourself. Your argument is not as sound as you may think it is. You criticize what I said, but I have provided plenty of argument as to why morality is subjective. Because it does change; because it can vary from person to person; because it is a human invention, and we are a subjective species. We think of new ideas, we think of new possibilities; without subjectivity, we wouldn't be able to survive. If we ran on cold hard logic and only that, we wouldn't be capable of doing very much. Some form of subjectivity is required for us to process, it's required for us to actually be able to made decisions. That is my evidence. The most you've provided has been, summed up:

1. My logic came to the conclusion that I have stated, therefore, I am probably correct.

2. Actions are either always right, or always wrong. They can be a lesser wrong, but a wrong nonetheless.

3. Those who practice otherwise, even as an entire society, is wrong about their morals. Those who disagree with my conclusions of morality, are false.

That is the sum of our argument as I have seen it, and that is a piss-poor argument. And I have stated why: I said it was dangerous because it is dogmatic, authoritarian; I have said it does not take context into account; I have said that morals require, by their very nature, opposing opinions to exist, which your argument ignores; I have said that for morals to be unchangeable and universal, it requires something beyond humans because that is what morality is. And apparently, either I didn't go into this or I missed it (I could haveve sworn I did; perhaps I took it out before posting), so I will now. In order for morality to be objective and universal, there has to be something above humans to set those values or actions as wrong or right. They just are not are. They don't simply exist. Morality is an idea, a concept. Ideas and concepts simply do not exist on their own; they require something to think them up. And for something to come up with the rights and wrongs that all humans should follow or be wrong in their actions require something of a deity, or someone who rules over all (and yes, that can be another person; but since that's not the case, and never was...). I have established reasons why I believe the way I do, why I think morality is subjective. Whether you ignore then or not, willingly or otherwise, is your fault, not mine. The things in this world that are objective is good science, math, physical evidence, and that we humans are not all-knowing.

And no, a debate is NOT to establish that you, as a debater, are correct. A debate is merely an argument. You can take up a contradictory position but not have any intention to "prove" anything. You can simply disagree with a stated position, and still debate. I could have said, " I don't know for sure, but I still think you are wrong in your position" and we could still hold a debate. I may disagree but not seek to prove anything; rather, provide information to consider. To think a debate is to establish a correct answer is naive.

Quote: Originally posted by ivan17
Apology accepted. It's not nice to hear words (in almost every sentence) such as sh*t, a*s...
That tells us much about culture (yes, it decays).

Conclusion - abortion is natural, we are animals.

...and, I think that Oaktree really doesn't deserve insolence.

First of all, I can say what the hell I wish. Yeah, I swear, but that does not make me "less cultural," it just means that swear words hold less power. Like with any taboo, the more it's practiced, the more accepted it is, the less taboo it becomes. You should hear some of the words that were considered as swears back in the olden days. Words we wouldn't even notice nowadays. It doesn't mean culture is decaying; it just means those particular swear words are losing their offensiveness. In a few hundred years from now, who knows, "fuck" could be about as offensive as "damn."

And lastly, good for you. I still hold really harsh opinions of both of you; think the same of me if you wish, it'd only make it mutual. But I was sick of her crap of stretching what I actually said and making actual baseless assumptions (such as her superior logical thinking), with the best evidence she could make being her argument itself, was pissing me off. Yeah, I have a short temper, I know that. At least I apologized, although trust me, it wasn't for either of you to like me. I don't really even give a damn if you want to actually accept it or not.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Scholar
#136 Old 8th May 2010 at 6:14 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Doddibot
I don't see how that makes a difference. It's not sentient. Whether it will become sentient, spontaneously or not, doesn't change the fact that it isn't sentient.


It has a life - which is something that I think should be preserved where possible - and it has potential for sapience (this being the correct word I was looking for). I think that the potential is important. Given standard conditions, all it takes is time for sapience to develop. I see fetuses as having a sort of proto-sapience, as the things that happen to them prior to achieving sapience impact the sapience that develops. I suppose it isn't a particularly strong argument without agreement on the base assumption I have put forth that life should only be taken out of dire necessity. Let me put this question to you: do you think that it should be legal to kill a 1-year-old, knowing that a 1-year-old is barely, if at all, sapient?


Quote:
Yes, so the real issue is the potentiality and sentience of the embryo. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether somebody is responsible for their pregnancy and should have known better or deserved it or whatever - those are all irrelevant.


First off, I didn't use the word "deserve". That word denotes something that is punishment or reward, while pregnancy is effect or consequence. Effects/consequences are natural progressions of actions, while punishments and rewards are human (or other sapient being) responses.

I suppose, however, that I was talking one step past the issue when I was talking about responsibility.

Quote:
I fail to see how anyone could be deprived when they aren't even being. If you weren't ever able to sense your quality of life, how can your quality of life be impacted?


Consider a sea sponge. The only reason I choose this animal is because it is essentially as simple as animals get, and it is highly doubtful that it has even the barest hint of sapience. A good life for a sea sponge is one that provides adequate food and possibly one that allows for reproduction. A sea sponge that does not get these things does not have a good life because those conditions are aversive to life. It isn't aware of the fact that it has or hasn't had a good life, but the condition applies nonetheless.



You can choose to respond to this or not:

Quote: Originally posted by Nekowolf
I will not get sucked back into this. This is my last comment on the subject. After this, I'm done; you seem to have no interesting in paying attention to what I am saying, and prefer to elevate your own conclusions as irrefutable using the circular logic that if morals are objective and universal, and you believe in those morals (despite your claims that you "may be" wrong, but do you really think you are? I doubt it), your conclusion cannot be wrong, because you believe in something that is universal and objective.


I have provided reasons for morality to be objective and universal. You may have missed them or maybe I didn't express them clearly enough, but you didn't argue logically against my claim that reality is objective and you didn't logically provide a reason why morality can be subjective even if reality is objective. You keep merely stating that things are subjective simply because there is disagreement. Disagreement does not mean subjectivity, as I have pointed out.

Quote:
Throughout the whole freaking thing, pretty much the only real "evidence," I guess you could say, has been, "well I used logic to come to a conclusion." Not once have you given any evidence into how morality is objective, set in stone, unchangeable. You've pretty much just said, "this is so," and when confronted with your position, "because my logic came to that conclusion." That is not evidence. Logic is not always objective, an when discussing philosophical issues such as morality, it is generally subjective; it's a process that involves accumulated individual knowledge, emotional context, and personal opinion.


I have provided other evidence than that. There have been times where I have pointed out that I am using logic, but that is when you have disputed the nature of philosophy itself. Logic is, by definition, objective. It is based in truth values, so it can only exist in the context of a system that has truth values, but it is the most fundamental aspect of such a system. There are certain truths that follow other truths logically. Logic itself is not faulty, but a person may use faulty logic. You may want to say that morality is subjective, but you cannot call logic subjective.

If you are truly a relativist, there is no argument that you can make. Logic is based in the principle that there is objective fact, so if you don't believe that there is objective fact, there is no way for you to come to logical conclusions. Anything that you assert is an objective statement that you are attempting to prove. If you don't believe in objective fact (first of all, this itself is an objective statement that you are making) then you can't believe that anything is right or wrong, so you cannot take a stance on anything at all. Seeing that you can't come to the conclusion that there is no objective fact without using logic (which is based in objective fact), there is no way to come to a correct conclusion that there is subjectivity and still remain within the bounds of human thought and philosophy.

Quote:
This is not like science or math. Math is objective, regardless, obviously. The scientific method is a method which, hopefully, tries to provide objectivity. This is not always the case, as some skirt around the method to try to prove their preconceived results.

When you discuss something like morality, something that falls into the realms of philosophy, objectivity breaks down. You can say, killing is wrong, regardless. It can never be justified enough to switch from a wrong, to a right. And you could argue, using your logic, it is because you are taking a life. Now let's say, for the sake of argument, I was a veteran of Iraq or Afghanistan. I could argue that I believe you are wrong; that killing can be justified, and in some contexts, can become a right. And I am still using logic; it is just my logic is different, because unlike yourself (for the sake of argument, of course), I was out in the field, and I had to kill to survive for my own life. My experience as changed my outlook, has changed my logic, to reach a new conclusion that, otherwise, I may have agreed on. Because I have experienced something you have not. This is evidence, this is proof, that logic can be subjective.


Science, math, and philosophy are all studied through rationality. Rationality takes known, objective facts, and builds logical arguments about various issues. Morality is one of the issues that rationality may explore in this manner. If a moral conclusion is reached through logic (based in objective fact), that moral statement is itself objective. It is quite possible to come to a moral statement through faulty logic, but then that is a flaw in your argument, not in objective fact.

If you go to war, killing the enemy may be the better option, but that doesn't make it good. You are still taking a life in an act of desperation. I realize that my stance that morality is based in what allows life to flourish has little support. If you want to base you ideas of morality on something else, you have every right to. It doesn't mean I'll agree with you, and I may even attempt to argue with you, but it is highly unlikely that such an argument would actually get anywhere, as both sides would be based in an unproven assumptions. What I am arguing is that you can't simply not have a basis for morality because there is objective reality, so you cannot derive claims of subjectivity from objectivity.

If your views have changed, that means that you have discarded your old views as incorrect. You believe your new views to be correct. That is an expression of objectivity. You believe that your new views are objectively correct, if you think that those other views are wrong.

Quote:
The reason I said you are dictating over my opinions, is because of opinions like this:

No, it is not. You are not even expressing at an opinion in this point. You are expressing it as a fact. Or how about this?


At that point in time, there was very little logic at all in your posts. Most of it was screaming at me for being authoritarian and wrong.

Quote:
You do not know this, yet you are expressing it, again, as a fact. I do have my own principles. And I am arguing, in part, on those principles. Have I adequately expressed those principles, if at all? Perhaps not. But that does not give you the right to assume about me. And that is what you have just done; assumed about what my principles are, then stated, as a fact, that I am not building my argument on those principles. Or further back.


It was wrong of me to assume that you did not have any fundamental principles. You were expressing an opinion of subjectivity, which, as I explained above, precludes the possibility of fundamental principles. As you have elaborated more on your point, you have expressed some strange principle that is halfway between objectivity and subjectivity, so now I know that you do have fundamental principles. I still disagree with them, and have provided arguments against them, but I know now that what I said at that point was not true.

Quote:
I was never ignoring that. That was a flaw in my argument you made. I never ignored it, I simply disagreed with your position. Plus there were the implications that you made that I said or believed that people with terminal illnesses cannot lead happy lives and would be better off dead. Something I never stated nor believe; what I said was, some may consider that. Some may think that, about themselves.


You were portraying unwanted pregnancy as something that is wrong. I was pointing out that the pregnancy in-itself is not wrong when it comes of consensual activity and choosing to keep the child of an unwanted pregnancy is an option. Part of this you disagreed with, which is your prerogative, but part of this was not made clear in your argument.

Quote:
You are not as good as you may consider yourself. Your argument is not as sound as you may think it is. You criticize what I said, but I have provided plenty of argument as to why morality is subjective. Because it does change; because it can vary from person to person; because it is a human invention, and we are a subjective species. We think of new ideas, we think of new possibilities; without subjectivity, we wouldn't be able to survive. If we ran on cold hard logic and only that, we wouldn't be capable of doing very much. Some form of subjectivity is required for us to process, it's required for us to actually be able to made decisions. That is my evidence. The most you've provided has been, summed up:


You haven't provided a logic answer as to how it changes. You have said that views on morality have changed over time, but I have argued back that this does not mean that morality has changed, but rather that views of it have.

Varying from person to person does not make it subjective. As I pointed out, this means that someone is wrong. I supported this statement by showing that there is objective reality and that morality is based on it.

Just because we are the only group to contemplate morality that we know of does not mean that it is a human invention. Mathematics is something that, to our knowledge, only humans are capable of, but we are searching for mathematical truth rather than inventing it. The same goes for science. There is a reason the word "discovery" is used rather than "invention" in those fields.

Maybe I'm being too nitpicky here, but we cannot be a subjective species. There is no truth value to the concept of human. It exists or it doesn't (it happens to), but "human" is not a fact. You cannot say the word human and have people agree or disagree. You have to make a statement about this thing known as human. :P

Thinking of new ideas is not subjectivity, but growth and creativity. Merely coming up with new ideas is not a moral or immoral act. There is no moral quality to a painting; it simply is. You can argue about its aesthetic qualities, but that is a whole other discussion.

I think that we would survive just fine running on logic where it is needed. Logic is needed in philosophical matters, including morality. Logic is not needed to the same degree in painting, for instance. There are plenty of acts that have nothing to do with morality and do not require logic. You can use logic in the form of consciously making use of technique when you paint, but there is nothing wrong with having at it without any thought to methodology. You can be as emotional as you wish when you paint, and it is often more beneficial to be emotional. You seem to be incorrectly extrapolating from my argument on morality that I think morality applies to everything and everything must be totally logical.

Subjectivity isn't required for progression; pure logic combined with empirical evidence is required for progression, at least in terms of morality. Pure logic involves a willingness to change one's stances when a more logical stance presents itself, but also an ability to effectively argue against less logical stances. Empirical evidence provides more knowledge about the world, allowing for more accurate base assumptions. These are the things that have progressed us morally throughout history.

Quote:
1. My logic came to the conclusion that I have stated, therefore, I am probably correct.


Your logic also came to your conclusion and you think that you are right. You have not pointed to any serious flaws in my logic. Doddibot has provided a few well directed questions and comments on my posts, but your comments have generally missed the mark.

Quote:
2. Actions are either always right, or always wrong. They can be a lesser wrong, but a wrong nonetheless.


Are you so afraid of this possibility? Our actions have bad consequences all the time. It is something that can't be helped. Morality is a guideline that say hey, you should try to do things that have good consequences and don't have bad consequences. Sometimes this isn't possible. Your actions may have bad consequences no matter how much you want then to have good consequences. It means that you have failed, but in a way that is unavoidable. It doesn't mean you're a horrible person. It is only when you repeatedly choose the worse outcome or intentionally choose the worse outcome that you really need to reconsider your actions.

Quote:
3. Those who practice otherwise, even as an entire society, is wrong about their morals. Those who disagree with my conclusions of morality, are false.


Yes, an entire society can be wrong about their moral stances. Slavery is a key example. We know now that it is wrong, but it was believed to be okay in the past. That means that people in the past were wrong.

I think that people who disagree with me are wrong unless they provide a compelling argument to sway me. What really matters, though, is whether people agree with the objective standard. I attempt to agree with the objective standard, have not found anyone to dissuade me of my current views, and have not found flaws in my current viewpoint through self-examination, so I think that I am right. Other people should go through the same process. I don't think that I am the standard, I think that I comply closely to the standard. Having others comply with me as a standard would be like making a copy of a copy: it is likely to turn out flawed and of lower quality. My attempt in arguing is to point out that there is an objective standard and to help others test the logic in their own arguments.

Quote:
That is the sum of our argument as I have seen it, and that is a piss-poor argument. And I have stated why: I said it was dangerous because it is dogmatic, authoritarian; I have said it does not take context into account; I have said that morals require, by their very nature, opposing opinions to exist, which your argument ignores; I have said that for morals to be unchangeable and universal, it requires something beyond humans because that is what morality is.


Dogmatism requires that something be given from authority; morality comes of logic. Therefore, it is not dogmatic. It doesn't matter whether it is dangerous for humans to believe in objective morality, because that fact does not mutate the properties of the universe. Further, I must stress that it is only once humans become involved that it holds any possibility of danger. It is not the objective standard itself that is dangerous.

I explained why it does take context into account. You don't like the way that it takes context into account, but you can't say that it doesn't.

Morals do not require opposing opinions because one can act morally without checking to see whether there is someone else acting immorally. If the whole world decided that killing was wrong, it is still possible to know that there is a thing called killing and it shouldn't be done. Your argument is based off of the assumption that we as a species forget all views that we do not currently hold. That is not true, as most of us don't practice slavery or have any exposure to the practice, yet we know that it did exist at one point and it is wrong.

Morality is beyond humans, but it doesn't require a being to pass down the moral laws. There is no god of math, yet we have math, something that transcends physical existence.

Quote:
And apparently, either I didn't go into this or I missed it (I could haveve sworn I did; perhaps I took it out before posting), so I will now. In order for morality to be objective and universal, there has to be something above humans to set those values or actions as wrong or right. They just are not are. They don't simply exist. Morality is an idea, a concept. Ideas and concepts simply do not exist on their own; they require something to think them up. And for something to come up with the rights and wrongs that all humans should follow or be wrong in their actions require something of a deity, or someone who rules over all (and yes, that can be another person; but since that's not the case, and never was...). I have established reasons why I believe the way I do, why I think morality is subjective. Whether you ignore then or not, willingly or otherwise, is your fault, not mine. The things in this world that are objective is good science, math, physical evidence, and that we humans are not all-knowing.


There is something above humans that sets laws: nature. Nature is not a conscious entity, though. Nature simply possesses rule, just be the mere fact of its existence. Nature just is, without requiring any other agency. We try to learn the rules of nature, which is where the flaw comes in. We cannot tap into nature directly to see all there is to know about it, so we have to rely on faulty perceptions.

Morality is both a concept and a fact. It is a fact, in that it is an aspect of nature and it is a concept in that we can have ideas about our perceptions of morality. Facts exist on their own, ideas require a thinking mind.

Plato came to the conclusion that there must be a supreme being dictating the laws of nature, but this is one place that I disagree with him. Do you really require that there be a god for you to believe in science? Can't science simply be the act of studying the laws of nature, without there being a sapient being to dictate what those laws are?

Your last statement seems to place you as an empiricist. Empiricists believe in only what they can find solid physical evidence for. Anything born of rationality is not to be trusted until it can be backed up by hard fact. The problem with this stance is that you have to make assumptions to be able to even interpret the hard fact. We perceive that there are three spacial dimensions, so there is empirical proof that there are three spacial dimensions. Could there be more that we simply can't perceive? You say that humans are not all-knowing, so do you accept that even in empirical matters, we can be wrong?

Quote:
And no, a debate is NOT to establish that you, as a debater, are correct. A debate is merely an argument. You can take up a contradictory position but not have any intention to "prove" anything. You can simply disagree with a stated position, and still debate. I could have said, " I don't know for sure, but I still think you are wrong in your position" and we could still hold a debate. I may disagree but not seek to prove anything; rather, provide information to consider. To think a debate is to establish a correct answer is naive.


If a debate is not undertaken with the attempt to establish a position as right, then it quickly devolves into the type of arguments that are observable among young children: "I'm right!" "No, I'm right!" "No, I'm right!" Ad infinitum. If the point of a debate was simply to raise a point, there would be no reason to participate after throwing in your opinion. You would make one post, speech, or whathaveyou outlining what you think and then you're done. That's not how debate works. Debate is a back and forth between two or more participants who are each trying to prove that their argument is more logical, as you and I have been doing.

Quote:
And lastly, good for you. I still hold really harsh opinions of both of you; think the same of me if you wish, it'd only make it mutual. But I was sick of her crap of stretching what I actually said and making actual baseless assumptions (such as her superior logical thinking), with the best evidence she could make being her argument itself, was pissing me off. Yeah, I have a short temper, I know that. At least I apologized, although trust me, it wasn't for either of you to like me. I don't really even give a damn if you want to actually accept it or not.


I don't dislike you. I simply disagree with you. I don't have to agree with a person to get along with them. Just one example: Many of my college friends are Christian. I am agnostic. We don't see eye to eye, but it doesn't mean we hate each others' guts.
Retired
retired moderator
#137 Old 8th May 2010 at 6:42 AM
Potential really isn't enough. Would you feed the masses on apple seeds just because they're potential apples?

What we're talking about is a small structure of human tissue several weeks away from what might even loosely be termed "proto-sentience", let alone sapience! (Under the abortion laws of most developed nations, ie, no abortions after about 12 weeks). In fact, what might be recognisably deemed sapience probably does not even occur until some point after birth. You're really stretching things here.


Quote:
Do you think that it should be legal to kill a 1-year-old, knowing that a 1-year-old is barely, if at all, sapient?


No. But let me stress, I feel we should not because: (a) 1-year-olds feel pain and can suffer, unlike foetuses (b) We place a remarkably high societal value on infants that need not extend to foetuses.

CAW Wiki - A wiki for CAW users. Feel free to edit.

GON OUT, BACKSON, BISY BACKSON
Instructor
#138 Old 8th May 2010 at 6:39 AM
Can we start a new thread about subjective vs. objective morals?

Because I do have a few things to say on the matter, but I truly feel this discussion would take this thread too far away from the original topic.
Scholar
#139 Old 8th May 2010 at 9:19 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Oaktree
I suppose it isn't a particularly strong argument without agreement on the base assumption I have put forth that life should only be taken out of dire necessity. Let me put this question to you: do you think that it should be legal to kill a 1-year-old, knowing that a 1-year-old is barely, if at all, sapient?

I think it probably should be legal. As long as the child doesn't suffer. I've been a proponent of legal infanticide in every abortion thread I've participated in on this forum.

Quote: Originally posted by Oaktree
Consider a sea sponge. The only reason I choose this animal is because it is essentially as simple as animals get, and it is highly doubtful that it has even the barest hint of sapience. A good life for a sea sponge is one that provides adequate food and possibly one that allows for reproduction. A sea sponge that does not get these things does not have a good life because those conditions are aversive to life. It isn't aware of the fact that it has or hasn't had a good life, but the condition applies nonetheless.

It's not wrong to give a sea sponge a horrible environment, or kill it outright. They can't feel, so can't suffer, so can't be wronged.

Just like an embryo.
Fat Obstreperous Jerk
#140 Old 8th May 2010 at 9:28 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Doddibot
It's not wrong to give a sea sponge a horrible environment, or kill it outright. They can't feel, so can't suffer, so can't be wronged.
So how much cruelty can I commit against a sea sponge before people start an outcry about it? If, for instance, I torture a sea sponge with electric shocks, at what point am I asked to stop? The sea sponge won't care very much either way, being that it lacks a nervous system.

Quote: Originally posted by fragglerocks
Can we start a new thread about subjective vs. objective morals?
Morality is just a set of arbitrary rules people have invented in the belief that others following them will maximize the quantity and quality of their survival. Some of them make sense, others are a load of horse puckey.

Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I cannot accept, and the wisdom to hide the bodies of those I had to kill because they pissed me off.
Lab Assistant
#141 Old 8th May 2010 at 9:33 AM
Quote: Originally posted by kiwi_tea
No. But let me stress, I feel we should not because: (a) 1-year-olds feel pain and can suffer, unlike foetuses (b) We place a remarkably high societal value on infants that need not extend to foetuses.


How can you know that foetuses don't feel pain?
When we are talking about animals (somewhere), we agreed that we can't know are they inteligent, emotional, have they soul, etc.

Doddibot, well in America and UK, everything is natural and what is natural it's right.

Abandoned account...
Retired
retired moderator
#142 Old 8th May 2010 at 10:04 AM
Quote:
How can you know that foetuses don't feel pain?


Because the components by which a foetus would feel pain do not connect up and start working properly until considerably after the 12th week. I recall an average of 22 weeks, but I could be misremembering. I doubt I'll be able to find a reliable figure on the internet of all places. Bits of the nervous system exist earlier than that in non-working forms, and some components are firing, but not to any effect as the various connections just aren't linked up. At any rate, the 12 week mark is very conservative, and ensures we're not hurting a thing. Even then, how much pain the foetus feels - if it does - is open to a lot of debate, given the broad lack of a truly functioning mind it has at any given point in gestation. Certainly, there is a line to be drawn somewhere. Personally, I think a very conservative 12 weeks is perfectly appropriate.

We know from the various components of the brain and body quite a lot about adult animal intelligence. We unlock more mysteries all the time, for example for the longest time we thought birds were a lot stupider than they were because we failed to recognise the neurological seat of bird intelligence because it's in a different place to that of mammals. Don't underestimate neurology's expositions of the intelligence of other animals. All the ones we interact with regularly have forms of limbic systems, and it's from the limbic system that a lot of our emotions originate.

CAW Wiki - A wiki for CAW users. Feel free to edit.

GON OUT, BACKSON, BISY BACKSON
Instructor
Original Poster
#143 Old 8th May 2010 at 10:29 AM
Quote: Originally posted by fragglerocks
Thank you Nekowolf for stating the bolded part, because this puts into words exactly why I believe Oaktree's argument is flawed. Survival instincts guide most of what life does, but that is not morality.


I think that is rather how morality developed though--as an evolutionary trait to insure the successful survival of a species. Helping one another, close bonding of families, not randomly killing the members of your family--all "moral" and all contribute to survival.
Instructor
#144 Old 8th May 2010 at 10:48 AM
But to say there is objective morality, would be to say that morality would exist even without humans around. Self preservation is a natural instinct, and it never changes. It just can't be compared to morality which is always changing because we learn and adapt. Societies change their views, and moral behavior varies widely. If being immoral is harming life, then humans take the cake on that. Should we not even be here then?
Instructor
Original Poster
#145 Old 8th May 2010 at 10:53 AM
Quote: Originally posted by fragglerocks
But to say there is objective morality, would be to say that morality would exist even without humans around. Self preservation is a natural instinct, and it never changes. It just can't be compared to morality which is always changing because we learn and adapt. Societies change their views, and moral behavior varies widely. If being immoral is harming life, then humans take the cake on that. Should we not even be here then?


I don't think "self-preservation" is a moral issue as I tend to think of "morality" as how we relate to others. Maybe that should be the first step--to define it.

I think morality can exist without humans--I think---but again, it depends on the definition. I think "morality" is an evolutionary trait that helps the survival of a species.

You ought to start your objective-subjective thread.
Scholar
#146 Old 8th May 2010 at 11:07 AM
Quote: Originally posted by ivan17
Doddibot, well in America and UK, everything is natural and what is natural it's right.

I doubt it.

Quote: Originally posted by J. M. Pescado
So how much cruelty can I commit against a sea sponge before people start an outcry about it? If, for instance, I torture a sea sponge with electric shocks, at what point am I asked to stop? The sea sponge won't care very much either way, being that it lacks a nervous system.

I'd imagine you could give as many electric shocks as you wanted. I don't see any reason why that would be wrong.
Retired
retired moderator
#147 Old 8th May 2010 at 11:41 AM
Pescado should probably stop before he gets symptoms of OOS, though.

CAW Wiki - A wiki for CAW users. Feel free to edit.

GON OUT, BACKSON, BISY BACKSON
Instructor
#148 Old 8th May 2010 at 12:08 PM
Quote: Originally posted by kiwi_tea
Pescado should probably stop before he gets symptoms of OOS, though.


Morally speaking, the sea sponge would definitely be in the wrong if that happened.
Banned
#149 Old 14th May 2010 at 3:46 PM
There is a recent book dealing with some of the issues: Red Families v. Blue Families http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/gener...i=9780195372175

Ross Douthat at the New York Times writes (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/o.../10douthat.html):

"The authors depict a culturally conservative “red America” that’s stuck trying to sustain an outdated social model. By insisting (unrealistically) on chastity before marriage, Cahn and Carbone argue, social conservatives guarantee that their children will get pregnant early and often (see Palin, Bristol), leading to teen childbirth, shotgun marriages and high divorce rates."

"This self-defeating cycle could explain why socially conservative states have more family instability than, say, the culturally liberal Northeast. If you’re looking for solid marriages, head to Massachusetts, not Alabama.... "

"More important, Cahn and Carbone also acknowledge one of the more polarizing aspects of the “blue family” model. Conservative states may have more teen births and more divorces, but liberal states have many more abortions."

"Liberals sometimes argue that their preferred approach to family life reduces the need for abortion. In reality, it may depend on abortion to succeed. The teen pregnancy rate in blue Connecticut, for instance, is roughly identical to the teen pregnancy rate in red Montana. But in Connecticut, those pregnancies are half as likely to be carried to term. Over all, the abortion rate is twice as high in New York as in Texas and three times as high in Massachusetts as in Utah."

"So it isn’t just contraception that delays childbearing in liberal states, and it isn’t just a foolish devotion to abstinence education that leads to teen births and hasty marriages in conservative America. It’s also a matter of how plausible an option abortion seems, both morally and practically, depending on who and where you are."

-------

The issue may transcend morality. If you want greater prosperity, stronger families, less divorce, and fewer teen pregnancies, you may have to tolerate more abortions. The price of a middle class lifestyle may be an acceptance of abortion. There may be very real, practical and economic consequences that come with any policy on abortion.
Test Subject
#150 Old 1st Jun 2010 at 12:46 AM
Have any of you ever had an abortion? For most of the logical/non-religious reasons above, I had one... Best decision I ever made.

Never say never. I didn't think i'd ever get one, or for that matter need one. But I did and I think it's very important that this option is available for women.
 
Page 6 of 7
Back to top