User Tag List

First 917181920 Last

Results 181 to 190 of 192

  1. #181
    Senior Member SensEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTp
    Posts
    213

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tkae. View Post
    There's never been a single culture where murder of a fellow citizen/tribesman/clanmember has ever been morally acceptable.
    Even the term murder implies a subjective standard. There's lots of cultures where killing a fellow citizen/tribesman/clanmember is acceptable. Usually, for violations of the "law" (the tribes particular moral standards). Of course, nobody calls that murder, it's justice.

    Zago keeps going off track by arguing people have sense of right and wrong. That morals exist. Nobody is arguing that. It's just that the moral standard people/cultures come up with is subjective. For morality to be objective, there needs to be a force outside of humanity that defines the morals standard (i.e. a god). Religious people can argue that there is an objective morality defined by their god. I won't believe them, but their concept of an objective morality under these conditions is valid.

  2. #182
    Senior Member zago's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    1,171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by entpersonal View Post
    Zago keeps going off track by arguing people have sense of right and wrong. That morals exist. Nobody is arguing that. It's just that the moral standard people/cultures come up with is subjective. For morality to be objective, there needs to be a force outside of humanity that defines the morals standard (i.e. a god). Religious people can argue that there is an objective morality defined by their god. I won't believe them, but their concept of an objective morality under these conditions is valid.
    There is a force outside of humanity that defines moral standards, and that is reason (ok not a force, but it is indeed beyond humanity and even god).

    Given what human nature IS, various statements can be made about it. Humans are creatures of preference. That fact alone is the basis for morality. Morality is what humans prefer--what they consider good. What else would it be?

  3. #183
    Senior Member tkae.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    IEI
    Posts
    762

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SensEye View Post
    Even the term murder implies a subjective standard. There's lots of cultures where killing a fellow citizen/tribesman/clanmember is acceptable. Usually, for violations of the "law" (the tribes particular moral standards). Of course, nobody calls that murder, it's justice.

    Zago keeps going off track by arguing people have sense of right and wrong. That morals exist. Nobody is arguing that. It's just that the moral standard people/cultures come up with is subjective. For morality to be objective, there needs to be a force outside of humanity that defines the morals standard (i.e. a god). Religious people can argue that there is an objective morality defined by their god. I won't believe them, but their concept of an objective morality under these conditions is valid.
    Yeah, but like you said, that's not murder. I'm talking about murder in the sense of killing someone for completely personal or emotional reasons without the consent of the group.
    "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

  4. #184
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tkae. View Post
    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.
    You have taken in the ideology of the politically correct without criticism, and without digesting it, without analysing it, without evaluating it, and without integrating it into your world view. I can understand that being meretricious is good for one's self esteem.

    But where the politically correct view fails is that morality is developmental. Morality develops in the individual and morality develops in society.

    And moral development can't take place unless morality is objective.

  5. #185
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,991

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tkae. View Post
    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.
    And what purpose would that be?

    Quote Originally Posted by tkae. View Post
    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.
    Objectively or subjectively lunatics?

    Yours is an historical analysis, but not a meta-moral analysis. In other words, your determination is based on how people have derived morality in the past. You don't judge one way or the other, but simply note that some morality has been subjectively derived, other morality has been objective (i.e., deemed "universally wrong" or right).

    I see no reason in the above to decide that both sides (objective and subjective) have a degree of correctness. If such reason exists, can you show it to me?
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  6. #186
    Senior Member tkae.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    IEI
    Posts
    762

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal12345 View Post
    Yours is an historical analysis, but not a meta-moral analysis. In other words, your determination is based on how people have derived morality in the past. You don't judge one way or the other, but simply note that some morality has been subjectively derived, other morality has been objective (i.e., deemed "universally wrong" or right).
    I'm actually saying that since I have a subjective view of morality, I can't actually agree that any element of morality has been objective. I'm just pointing out that there are some things that have appeared in all versions of morality, and therefor could be argued as being signs of an objective morality. I'm not saying I agree with it, since I don't think those things are universally moral or immoral by their nature.

    I see no reason in the above to decide that both sides (objective and subjective) have a degree of correctness. If such reason exists, can you show it to me?
    Not really. If you don't see it in what I said, nothing else I say will show it to you. I'd use the exact same thought process for any lesser examples.
    "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

  7. #187
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tkae. View Post
    I'm actually saying that since I have a subjective view of morality, I can't actually agree that any element of morality has been objective.
    If your morality is subjective, how could I possible trust you?

  8. #188
    Senior Member TheCheeseBurgerKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    369

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by danseen View Post
    I think this irks a lot of people, but to me at least (perhaps this is the "no rules" INTP part of me talking haha.) this is how I see it:

    - IMO, subjectivism is meant in a cosmological sense. I don't know of any universal moral law
    - I personally believe in equal rights for all, no matter who you are. But had I lived in early modern times, pre the Enlightenment, I may not have thought this.

    So then, how isn't morality subjective?

    IMO, I personally don't give a shit lol.. "Morals" are spent.

    Not sure exactly what you are asking, but my best answer is that morals are made objective so that we are all looking at the same thing, kind of like guidelines.

    What type of morals are you refering too?
    Can I get a for instance?

  9. #189
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,628

    Default

    Because history is the best interpretation of past events that people have decided to agree upon.

  10. #190
    Member krypton1te's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    43

    Default

    Morality is subjective, in a sense that, when we compare it to the universe, morality only exists because of its human origin. All its considerations are subjective perspectives that have been formulated to some kind of objective.

    Morality is and isn't subjective. It all depends on the way we decide to look at it. It is subjective to the universe, but it is objective to us (humans).
    Two things fill me with wonder —
    the starry heavens above me and
    the moral law within me.

    Immanuel Kant
    _____________________________________________


    Tell me what a person finds sexually attractive
    and I will tell you their entire philosophy of life.

    Ayn Rand (Atlas Shrugged)

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