Originally posted by Gideon
Why not?Once again, you said moral codes are subjective because people don't follow the same code. I'm just going on what you've said.
Originally posted by Eminence
There aren't canon sources dictating the laws of morality, to my knowledge.
Some would assert that the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, and others are absolute codes of ethics. And Darth Sexy is right; many countries base their own laws off of these documents.
But to assert that morality is subjective simply because people believe differently is false. The fact that Star Wars has a set of defined rules proves my point; there are people who disagree with the status quo even when it is absolute.
But that does not mean that their opinions are valid simply because "it's what [they] believe."
Originally posted by GideonThis isn't even a point unless there is an unquestionable, absolute ruling on any or all aspects of morality. If that's your contention, we're simply going to agree to disagree.
But to assert that morality is subjective simply because people believe differently is false. The fact that Star Wars has a set of defined rules proves my point; there are people who disagree with the status quo even when it is absolute.
Originally posted by Eminence
This isn't even a point unless there is an unquestionable, absolute ruling on any or all aspects of morality. If that's your contention, we're simply going to agree to disagree.
My contention is that there are certain understandings that are absolute. Murder is wrong, rape is wrong, et cetera. Your outlook makes room for the possibility that they may not be.
Originally posted by Eminence
Like, canon.
The wording is unclear; are you saying that nothing is subjective, or that there are simply things that aren't?If it's the latter, well, I agree; I don't think I've ever said that everything is subjective. [/B]
It's the latter. Everything is NOt subjective. A lot of things are but there ARE universal rights and wrongs.
Moral Objectivism falls apart before it even gets off the runway. Everything we consider ethics and morals are nothing more than constructs created by lumps of carbon with electrical impulses going on in their heads. There are no universal right and wrongs, no overarching standard the universe follows. Only what we random species of mammals come up with.
Okay, I'm back, and here is pretty much my view of our existing laws: We do not illegalize murder, theft, rape, and other sorts of violent crimes because I perceive them to be evil. We illegalize them because they harm society. That is an absolute. It cannot be refuted. (No, I'm not a 'pure' relativist, though I'm closer to its than to absolutism). Thus, in order to create a functioning society and preventing people from getting harmed, activities that damage people must be illegalized. I think that the key thing in determining whether an action should be considered right or wrong is consent; because if someone commits an act in self-interest or they perceive to be right upon an individual who does not agree with that and has a differing interest, then this actually contradicts the concept of moral relativism.
As for relativism and the Holocaust. Not only do I have the opinion that the West must take its share of the blame for it, but I don't think we should have intervened when the situation was purely in Germany. It is none of our business what another country does with its people, even if that does not fit our concept of 'human rights' and such. Okay, maybe we should have intervened to a point, but not to the degree of military action; economic and diplomatic sanctions should be sufficient. However, the moment Germany invaded Poland, I think it was our responsibility to do something to stop it; to prevent one ideology from crushing an 'unconsenting' ideology. You may answer like moral relativist and say 'who are you to say that war is bad'? It is bad for Poland. That is another un-doubtable fact. It is good for Germany. In order to somehow reconcile these two beliefs and reach an effective compromise (and, of course, prevent the weak from being crushed by the more militarily strong), it was our responsibility to intervene.
To what degree, though? Well... not to the degree of full-out war, which must only be exercised (and even then in moderation) when the country itself is in peril.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
It's the latter. Everything is NOt subjective. A lot of things are but there ARE universal rights and wrongs.
Would you say something we place a social taboo on, like 'deviant' sexual acts (incest, etc), or even violent acts like consenting cannibalism and mutilation are 'evil'? And if they are, who decides them to be evil? God? Can the concept of a religious God be proven to be anything more than subjective faith upon a standard that has no backing to its name? The Bible? Can it be proven to be any more than the ramblings of several men thousands of years ago? The majority? Well, then, the majority of people are progressive liberals who advocate abortion and gay marriage. Thus, you ideology is 'wrong'.
I don't believe in universal rights and wrongs, but I believe in societal laws and wrongs the necessity to marry multiple moralities in the best possible manner, instead of letting a single subjective ideology (religion) dominate everyone and force them to conform to differing standards that prevents pursuit of happiness and self-expression.
Originally posted by Autokrat
Moral Objectivism falls apart before it even gets off the runway. Everything we consider ethics and morals are nothing more than constructs created by lumps of carbon with electrical impulses going on in their heads. There are no universal right and wrongs, no overarching standard the universe follows. Only what we random species of mammals come up with.
Which is as ridiculous an assertion (if not more)that there is a higher being. There are universal rights and wrongs. We've proven some of them. The ability to make an excuse for them does NOT equate to it being subjective, or justifiable.
You need to differentiate between efficiency and morality. We don't legalize murder not because we find it to be immoral, but rather because its legalization will lead to the development of a chaotic, anarchic society. Why is chaos bad? Simply because it will lead to the prevention of people from expressing themselves; the more aggressive will win out over the most passive, and letting a single trait act as more positive than the other is fundamentally opposed to relativism.
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
You need to differentiate between efficiency and morality. We don't legalize murder not because we find it to be immoral, but rather because its legalization will lead to the development of a chaotic, anarchic society. Why is chaos bad? Simply because it will lead to the prevention of people from expressing themselves; the more aggressive will win out over the most passive, and letting a single trait act as more positive than the other is fundamentally opposed to relativism.
OR we realize that immorality will cause a chaotic and anarchic society.
'Morality' is subjective. Harm is not. Our laws depend not on what is right or wrong, but rather on what harms or doesn't harm society.
Laws that do not harm anyone and thus depend purely on subjective morality should not exist. 'Immorality' is subjective; it is not for one individual, or even the majority, to dictate what is right for everyone else.
Hell, if everybody is allowed self-expression, freedom, and the right to anti-conformity (so long as it doesn't directly 'harm' anyone other than consenting people, or themselves), it will create a better and more happy society.
Morality is NOT subjective. Our laws depend on right and wrong. Doing something immoral or wrong by that very definition, harms our society. Immorality is NOT subjective either. Your argument was destroyed yesterday. To claim morality is subjective is to claim that what Stalin and Hitler did was NOT wrong.
And no, your little hippie utopia of "self expression, freedom, and anti comformity" is a delusion brought on my excessive drug use.
I've already explained my views on the Holocaust. As a Jew and a 'humanist', I naturally sympathize with the suffering Jews. However, is it really any of our business what a country decides to do with itself, even if what it does does not conform to our moralistic standards? However, the moment this extended beyond Germany and began to be the forcing of their ideology upon unwilling actions, we have a responsibility to intervene.
My 'little hippie utopia' is a far better than your religious-fascistic fantasy where everybody conforms to the your precious Bible.
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
I've already explained my views on the Holocaust. As a Jew and a 'humanist', I naturally sympathize with the suffering Jews. However, is it really any of our business what a country decides to do with itself, even if what it does does not conform to our moralistic standards? However, the moment this extended beyond Germany and began to be the forcing of their ideology upon unwilling actions, we have a responsibility to intervene.My 'little hippie utopia' is a far better than your religious-fascistic fantasy where everybody conforms to the your precious Bible.
Which is why your ridiculous nonsense is the subject of continuous ridicule in this thread. Nobody sane or rational would believe in that hilarious hippie utopia. Not even any of the liberals i've met because they aren't so ignorant or naive. You should carve out a desert island for yourself because your "utopia" will never exist. And way to rationalize the holocaust, jackass. By your definition, if the extermination was confined to ONLY Germany, it would be ok. By that same logic, Stalin was justified in murdering 22 million of his fellow Russians because it was confined to his country. Nice "logic".
Originally posted by Dr McBeefingtonThe proper wording would be "not everything is subjective." Taken literally, you're saying that nothing is subjective.
It's the latter. Everything is NOt subjective.
A lot of things are but there ARE universal rights and wrongs.
Originally posted by Eminence
As defined by who?
The ability to make an excuse for them does NOT equate to it being subjective.Yeah it does. That's the entire point; people don't see things the same way. That doesn't mean one viewpoint can't be more rational than another, as I've said half a dozen times.