Why ISN'T morality subjective?

[entpersonal]

I still want my Hitler argument addressed. You never really addressed it. Was Hitler wrong, or is it all just an opinion and Hitler was just as right as anyone has ever been?

You're not getting the parameters of this - nobody has ever been right or wrong because right and wrong don't exist IRL.

 

[entpersonal]

Heroin only promotes well being in the very short term. Obviously it is wrong to take heroin (and amphetamines, etc) if you're a normal person.

Explain to me why this activity is "wrong" per se. What is a normal person exactly?

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

I still want my Hitler argument addressed. You never really addressed it. Was Hitler wrong, or is it all just an opinion and Hitler was just as right as anyone has ever been?

To be objective, something must be universally understood as true. Though the majority of the population believes Hitler was evil and wrong, there are still those who praise his actions and visions. Therefore, it requires one to determine in ones own self whether or not Hitler was evil or good. Even though society condemns genocide and war objectively, there are still those who don't.

 

[zago]

You're not getting the parameters of this - nobody has ever been right or wrong because right and wrong don't exist IRL.

Explain to me why this activity is "wrong" per se. What is a normal person exactly?

To be objective, something must be universally understood as true. Though the majority of the population believes Hitler was evil and wrong, there are still those who praise his actions and visions. Therefore, it requires one to determine in ones own self whether or not Hitler was evil or good. Even though society condemns genocide and war objectively, there are still those who don't.

So you wouldn't have taken a side in WWII?

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

So you wouldn't have taken a side in WWII?

That's a faulty leap, no, I would have. But ultimately, it would be a subjective stance. There is no objective stance in morality and war.

Objectivism is saying that 1 + 1 = 2, that a force exists that tethers us to Earth, and that the Western Roman Empire dissolved in 476 AD.

Subjectivism is saying that 1 problem + 1 problem = 2 failures, that Gravity is the force that tethers us to Earth, and that the Western Roman Empire was entirely evil and deserved the Visigoths' wrath.

 

[zago]

That's a faulty leap, no, I would have. But ultimately, it would be a subjective stance. There is no objective stance in morality and war.

Why would you take a subjective stance?

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

Why would you take a subjective stance?

Because that's the only stance one can take. You act as if subjectivism is always disillusioned. Sometimes the individual's reasoning is better than the collective's ascertainment. Everyone always believes they are the good guy in the first person. It is only in the third person does someone become "bad".

 

[zago]

Because that's the only stance one can take. You act as if subjectivism is always disillusioned. Sometimes the individual's reasoning is better than the collective's ascertainment. Everyone always believes they are the good guy in the first person. It is only in the third person does someone become "bad".

I'm not sure how this answers my question. That certainly isn't the only stance one can take. As Americans we pretty much had three options. Fight against Hitler, fight for him, or do nothing. So why would you fight against Hitler, given that it is not the only stance one can take?

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

I'm not sure how this answers my question. That certainly isn't the only stance one can take. As Americans we pretty much had three options. Fight against Hitler, fight for him, or do nothing. So why would you fight against Hitler, given that it is not the only stance one can take?

Of course it isn't the only stance, but there is only one kind of stance that one can take and that is the subjective stance. Anything objective must be unanimous. In fact, since there is are 3 splits in your examples, that shows that all three of those are subjective stances, that there is no universal truth to any of them, nothing makes one more right (in a logical sense, not a moral sense) than the other.

Objectively speaking, Hitler committed genocide and war crimes.

Subjectively speaking, Hitler is a bad person and evil for committing genocide and war crimes.

The difference is that objectivism can only deal with facts, while subjectivism can only deal with facts laced with opinion. Any appeal to Pathos (emotional and moral argument) is entirely subjective, while any appeal to Logos is usually objective.

 

[zago]

Of course it isn't the only stance, but there is only one kind of stance that one can take and that is the subjective stance. Anything objective must be unanimous. In fact, since there is are 3 splits in your examples, that shows that all three of those are subjective stances, that there is no universal truth to any of them, nothing makes one more right (in a logical sense, not a moral sense) than the other.

Objectively speaking, Hitler committed genocide and war crimes.

Subjectively speaking, Hitler is a bad person and evil for committing genocide and war crimes.

The difference is that objectivism can only deal with facts, while subjectivism can only deal with facts laced with opinion. Any appeal to Pathos (emotional and moral argument) is entirely subjective, while any appeal to Logos is usually objective.

You still are not answering my question. Why, subjectively, would you choose to fight against Hitler rather than fight for him or do nothing?

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

You still are not answering my question. Why, subjectively, would you choose to fight against Hitler rather than fight for him or do nothing?

That's easy, I don't like what Hitler did to my people in Poland. I subjectively believe he deserves brutal torture and a gruesome death for what he has done.

 

[entpersonal]

You still are not answering my question. Why, subjectively, would you choose to fight against Hitler rather than fight for him or do nothing?

One could oppose Hitler simply because his policies disrupted domestic life.

 

[zago]

One could oppose Hitler simply because his policies disrupted domestic life.

Woah there, entpersonal. What is worth defending about domestic life? It is just your opinion that domestic life has any value. Try again!

 

[zago]

That's easy, I don't like what Hitler did to my people in Poland. I subjectively believe he deserves brutal torture and a gruesome death for what he has done.

That's just your opinion, though. You have already told me that you don't believe one is better than the other. In choosing to fight against Hitler you are taking a stance based on one opinion being better than another, which you have already said is impossible to prove.

 

[zago]

I'm gonna go ahead and spoil the ending for you guys. I'm just going to keep asking you to explain yourselves until you have to admit there is one universal: you like feeling good, and so does everyone. Good is good. Bad is bad. They exist. They are fundamental. Rocks don't know them, but we do. You can't reason about humans from the standpoint of a rock. The end.

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

That's just your opinion, though. You have already told me that you don't believe one is better than the other. In choosing to fight against Hitler you are taking a stance based on one opinion being better than another, which you have already said is impossible to prove.

I know that's my opinion, hence me mentioning its subjectivity. You mistake Objectivism for majority approval, when it is not. Objectivism is universal Logos. I'm not arguing about opinionation, I'm arguing about the terms you are using. It's impossible to objectively say one is better than the other morally or emotionally (but you can in terms of logical efficiency and reasoning), it is entirely possible to subjectively say one is better than the other.

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

I'm gonna go ahead and spoil the ending for you guys. I'm just going to keep asking you to explain yourselves until you have to admit there is one universal: you like feeling good, and so does everyone. Good is good. Bad is bad. They exist. They are fundamental. Rocks don't know them, but we do. You can't reason about humans from the standpoint of a rock. The end.

Good and Bad only exist subjectively. Everyone likes feeling good, but good is a matter of opinion. Morality is subjective. Emotions are subjective. Opinions are the core of subjection.

There is no good or bad. There are only facts. What we do with those facts determines whether or not something is "good" or "bad".

 

[zago]

I know that's my opinion, hence me mentioning its subjectivity. You mistake Objectivism for majority approval, when it is not. Objectivism is universal Logos. I'm not arguing about opinionation, I'm arguing about the terms you are using. It's impossible to objectively say one is better than the other morally or emotionally (but you can in terms of logical efficiency and reasoning), it is entirely possible to subjectively say one is better than the other.

Good and Bad only exist subjectively. Everyone likes feeling good, but good is a matter of opinion. Morality is subjective. Emotions are subjective. Opinions are the core of subjection.

There is no good or bad. There are only facts. What we do with those facts determines whether or not something is "good" or "bad".

I can't reply to these right now. I will have to do it later. I am too busy laughing over the post highlander made which I linked to in my signature.

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

I can't reply to these right now. I will have to do it later. I am too busy laughing over the post highlander made which I linked to in my signature.

lol, alrighty then. Good debate by the way. I'm going to go check out that thread now.

 

[entpersonal]

Woah there, entpersonal. What is worth defending about domestic life? It is just your opinion that domestic life has any value. Try again!

I didn't say worth defending. A random person might just oppose Hitler because it disrupted his routine and not really care about the ethical issues.