User Tag List

First 81617181920 Last

Results 171 to 180 of 192

  1. #171
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,536

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by entpersonal View Post
    That's already been violated nine ways to Sunday. Also, a bunch of people agreeing on something doesn't make it objectively valid. A lot of people thought the earth was flat at one point. That consensus didn't make it so.
    We put our blood and treasure behind it. You will have to walk over us before we abandon the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

  2. #172
    Senior Member entpersonal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    151

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    We put our blood and treasure behind it. You will have to walk over us before we abandon the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
    It's already been abandoned numerous times over the decades since its inception.

  3. #173
    Senior Member zago's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    1,171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    The fact that those people still play a part in society and are unhindered socially states that their opinions do have some, though small, weight. Another thing to add is that there is no measurement of good or bad. Some might say that while Hitler's holocaust was bad, Stalin's purges were worse, while another might say vice versa, meaning that not everyone accepts the holocaust as bad on the same level as others, which is required for an objective position. If good and bad were measured on scientific scales and could not be refuted, such as 1.7 bad (statistical data), then it would be objective.

    People reserve the right to be wrong though, and while they are wrong, they see themselves as right in their own eyes, a testament to subjectivity. You are right, it isn't an opinion that the people there suffered, that is an objective fact (though you can't ascertain exactly how much suffering was imposed). But some supremacists say that the means justify the end, that the Jews wouldn't control the world and cause "evil" wars, and that juxtaposes the majority viewpoint that the means don't justify the end because both the means and the end are "evil".

    Almost all arguments are technically subjective, as arguments are designed to persuade the denier to see the idea from the arguer's point of view, which is a subjective viewpoint. The only time an argument isn't truly subjective is when the denier is clearly denying raw, statistical data that is irrefutable, in which case the arguer is trying to make the denier view the situation objectively and open their eyes.
    Even the most objective of all sciences can be looked at that way. People can see the entire body of evidence for evolution and claim that God put the fossils there to trick us, etc. Someone could say God made us find what appeared to be a higgs boson at the LHC last year because he wanted to fool us into wasting lots of resources.

    I would say suffering is ultimately fully quantifiable, but we merely lack the technology or even close to do that. In terms of actual data, we know virtually nothing that happens. Everything can be collected, though. I could have ALL, I mean 100% of the physiological data from every person who even remotely experienced World War II and I can give you an answer to your question of who was worse, Stalin or Hitler. We just lack that ability today.

    Bed time. Until tomorrow.

  4. #174
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zago View Post
    Even the most objective of all sciences can be looked at that way. People can see the entire body of evidence for evolution and claim that God put the fossils there to trick us, etc. Someone could say God made us find what appeared to be a higgs boson at the LHC last year because he wanted to fool us into wasting lots of resources.

    I would say suffering is ultimately fully quantifiable, but we merely lack the technology or even close to do that. In terms of actual data, we know virtually nothing that happens. Everything can be collected, though. I could have ALL, I mean 100% of the physiological data from every person who even remotely experienced World War II and I can give you an answer to your question of who was worse, Stalin or Hitler. We just lack that ability today.

    Bed time. Until tomorrow.
    We do actually have the technology, it's just that we didn't have it back then. This one deals with heat tolerance and pain levels.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolorimeter

    Polling people to figure out which is worse still doesn't make it objective, as there is still controversy no matter how small, and to be objective it must be unanimously true and exact.

    To the first paragraph, that's why almost everything is subjective, as people always find ways of denying truths they don't want to hear.

  5. #175
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,536

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by entpersonal View Post
    It's already been abandoned numerous times over the decades since its inception.
    It has only been abandoned by the OIC (the Organisation of Islamic Co-operation), consisting of 57 Islamic nations who want to continue to violate human rights.

    The OIC partlcularly hates the USA because the USA has enshrined the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the United States of America.

    No wonder they hate America because the Constitution of the USA stands four square in the path of Sharia.

  6. #176
    Senior Member entpersonal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    151

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    The OIC partlcularly hates the USA because the USA has enshrined the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the United States of America.
    The US Constitution that excluded women and slaves per being subhuman?

  7. #177
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    We put our blood and treasure behind it. You will have to walk over us before we abandon the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
    Ironically the Universal Declaration of Human Rights when it was adopted actually only had 48 countries vote in favor of it, had 8 abstentions (which was the CCCP, Ukraine SSR, Belarus SSR, Yugoslavia, Poland, South Africa, Czechslovakia, and Saudi Arabia) and also had 2 countries not even offer their favor, disfavor, or abstention of the declaration, and those were Yemen and Honduras.

  8. #178
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,536

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    Ironically the Universal Declaration of Human Rights when it was adopted actually only had 48 countries vote in favor of it, had 8 abstentions (which was the CCCP, Ukraine SSR, Belarus SSR, Yugoslavia, Poland, South Africa, Czechslovakia, and Saudi Arabia) and also had 2 countries not even offer their favor, disfavor, or abstention of the declaration, and those were Yemen and Honduras.
    The Declaration of Human Rights was signed by all members of the general assembly in the United Nations in 1948. The signing of this document was obligatory for every nation which desired to participate and be represented in the world body.

    Human Rights are first of all a moral issue, then secondly they are a political issue.

    All civilized countries have settled the moral issue in favour of human rights, and it now falls to us to defend human rights against those who violate them.

    It is such a clear cut moral issue, it is only fair to ask, are you with us or or you against us?

  9. #179
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    The Declaration of Human Rights was signed by all members of the general assembly in the United Nation in 1948. The signing of this document was obligatory for every nation which desired to participate and be represented in the world body.

    Human Rights are first of all a moral issue, then secondly they are a political issue.

    All civilized countries have settled the moral issue in favour of human rights, and it now falls to us to defend human rights against those who violate them.

    It is such a clear cut moral issue, it is only fair to ask, are you with us or or you against us?
    I'm for it entirely, but to technically be an objective document it needs to be recognized by every country and possibly even every person on the planet.

  10. #180
    Senior Member tkae.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    IEI
    Posts
    762

    Default

    My boyfriend is a moral objectivist, and we've had some rough arguments about it.

    From his point of view, morality is a moot point if it's subjective. He considers the very concept of morality to be a black and white, good and evil, right or wrong system that judges a person's actions as either moral or immoral without regard for context. That morality is almost like an idealistic kind of justice where only facts matter, and that to ignore the facts in favor of emotions or extenuating circumstances is a violation of the entire purpose for a morality in the first place.

    For the record, I don't agree. I believe (and was taught in my humanities classes) that morality is influenced more by culture than by any universal kind of right or wrong. That where pedophilia is immoral today, it was totally moral two hundred years ago, or two thousand years ago where you had Greek men sleeping with older boys and it being considered a moral, educational experience. And with samurai. And Chinese nobles... and so forth.

    At the same time, there is a degree of objectiveness to morality. Some things are universally wrong by way of them being disruptive to humanity at the most basic, fundamental level.

    For example, murder. There's never been a single culture where murder of a fellow citizen/tribesman/clanmember has ever been morally acceptable. Rape has never moral. And so forth. Typically they're things that are extremely traumatic and cause a major impact on a number of peoples' lives. The only time murder has ever been "moral" is in revenge murders (Hamlet and Duncan's son in Macbeth, for instance), but those are only considered moral because the initial act of murder was highly immoral, thus alleviating the revenge murderer of moral repercussions by acting as an agent of moral justice rather than an immoral infringer of morality.

    So I think neither objective nor subjective morality is completely right. There's a degree of both. It's all about how you spin the argument. As far as my boyfriend's concerned, subjective morality is too busy with historical apologetics and not focused enough on what is or isn't moral, where I think we have to look at the malleability of morality to understand why we consider things now immoral that weren't immoral before.

    And if you were to ask me that question I'd say it's because the Puritans were fucking lunatics. But I digress.
    "Not knowing how near the truth is, we seek it far away." -Ekaku Hakuin
    http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b1...psdunkqmep.png
    5w4 . IEI . Chaotic Good
    Right-Libertarian Minarchist

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 07-27-2014, 12:54 AM
  2. [ESFP] Why isn't there any threads on ESFP's?
    By Eiddy in forum The SP Arthouse (ESFP, ISFP, ESTP, ISTP)
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 04-28-2009, 12:30 AM
  3. Why isn't Intuition more widely known?
    By Quinlan in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 03-07-2009, 07:53 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO