I don't believe in completely objective morality no.
However I don't think something as severe as killing is just a matter of opinion.
I believe our only real(though not exactly objective) moral compass is empathy with the combination of rational thought.
For the large part most of our important moral laws are already based on that(for example killing, raping and other forms of violence).
You'd have hard time finding a person who thinks that killing in its very self is alright, some people think it's OK if you kill for a
good reason(War, execution of mass murderer, self defense), but I'd argue that's for the large part because of suppressed empathy(Because of feelings of revenge,
hate or a forced down dogma among other reasons). Institutions where empathy doesn't serve a purpose can vary from military where feeling empathy for your
enemies is most likely not going to help you win a fight - to prison where showing empathy can be seen as a sign of weakness, which can warrant you a lot of trouble
in that environment. Also some ideologies, religions and cultures can portray some class of people as inferior or evil, and can hammer empathy for that
group of people out of the their members by growing them into the ideology or suppressing rational thought with various forms of propaganda and brainwashing.
So even if you cannot judge people for not doing the "right" thing(Because there is no definitive right and wrong),
you can judge them for not using empathy or suppressing it.
I'd say the more minor and more artifical moral rules though, like sexual age of consent, are more a matter of public opinion.
Does that make sense to anyone? :P
You mean sympathy. Not empathy.
...
Divine Command Theory
The divine command theory (DCT) of ethics holds that an act is either moral or immoral solely because God either commands us to do it or prohibits us from doing it, respectively. On DCT the only thing that makes an act morally wrong is that God prohibits doing it, and all that it means to say that torture is wrong is that God prohibits torture. DCT is wildly implausible for reasons best illustrated by the Euthyphro dilemma, which is based on a discussion of what it means for an act to be holy in Plato's Euthyphro. Substituting "moral wrongness" for "holiness" raises the dilemma: Is torture wrong because God prohibits it, or does God prohibit torture because it is already wrong?
While DCT takes the the first route, Euthyphro takes the last one: If a good God prohibits torture he does so because torture is intrinsicly wrong, not merely because he declares torture to be wrong by fiat. But if torture is intrinsicly wrong, then it is wrong regardless of whether or not God exists. Either certain acts are wrong regardless of anyone's opinions or commands (including God's), or else all that we mean by "torture is wrong" is "God prohibits torture." Rather than grounding the objectivity of ethics, DCT completely undermines it by insisting that God's commands (like those of individuals or societies) do not require justification in terms of any external principles.
DCT is thus a kind of moral relativism: what's right or wrong is what one's God (like one's self or one's society) says is right or wrong--and there are no moral standards apart from this. Yet if God said that 2+2=100, 2+2=100 would nonetheless be false because 2+2=4 is true regardless of what God says. The same point holds for moral propositions like "inflicting unnecessary suffering solely for fun is wrong." If that proposition is true, then it is true regardless of whether God commands or prohibits inflicting such suffering.
If there is no standard of "being morally right" apart from God's commands, then God could literally command us to do anything and it would be right for us to do it by definition. Whatever God commands becomes the standard of moral rightness, and there are no moral values external to God to constrain what he would or would not command. So if God commanded one person to rape another, DCT entails that that rape would be moral because "doing the right thing" is logically equivalent to "doing what God commands." A highly implausible implication is that it is impossible to even imagine God commanding a wrong act. What counts as moral or immoral behavior on DCT is completely subjective--dependent upon God's fiat--and thus arbitrary.
While some retort that goodness flows from God's nature, this merely changes the form of the dilemma: Is compassion good because it is a part of God's nature, or is compassion a part of God's nature because it is already good? The first option produces problems parallel to those for DCT. If malice were a part of God's nature, for instance, it is doubtful that malice would automatically be good. If there are any objective moral standards at all, then a god can be either good or evil, and the assessment of a god's character would depend upon appealing to standards independent of any god's commands, opinions, statements, nature, or character.
I don't suppose you feel very strongly about Hitler's actions then. He lost, so he died. But if he had won, what he did would have been cool.
video
Not really. Probably would've been the same thing as with Stalin - all his murderous rampages were "cool", till he died. Then he was a monster and buried and forgotten like a bad dream.
Everything except the concentration camps, yeah. It's one thing if he used them as manual labor or for experimentation, it's another to just execute them when they could still be used in the war effort.I didn't quite get this post...?
Unless they melt.
Would Gandhi take a pill that makes him want to murder?
No, it doesn't "adapt." It refers to a concept that doesn't change. If three people bake a cake, all doing equally much, in no human society will it be considered fair to give Billy two thirds of the cake. Now, in the past, or in the future.
The question you have to ask, Xant, is...does reality care?Do I care if reality cares? The answer is no.
What. Are you deliberatetly trying to get me hooked on replying to your stuff? Ofcourse it was. In the past, the concept was that if Billy was a son of a highborn, he had the legimate right to have 2 thirds of the pie if he wants, even if the bakers got nothing in return for it. And the baker thought that the only part about this being unfair was that he wasnt born a highborn. "I give you pies I worked for so long, you dont burn my house down". Fair enough m8.
Do I care if reality cares? The answer is no.
Then we're all agreed that there is no moral objectivity and it's just a nice tool to employ so that we don't destroy our status quo in a free-for-all battle royale?No? Where is that implied?
So I suppose you think that "fairness" is also just an abstract notion with no basis in anything, a mere social construct?
No, it doesn't "adapt." It refers to a concept that doesn't change. If three people bake a cake, all doing equally much, in no human society will it be considered fair to give Billy two thirds of the cake. Now, in the past, or in the future.
The notion that morals are just a social construct is absurd. Does a blank slate human have a preference for other people suffering or for other people not suffering? Does he prefer for babies to die or for babies to live? Would Gandhi take a pill that makes him want to murder?
Why are you inserting these "what-ifs" into the question when they were never there? If it was not stated that Billy is a highborn, then he is not. I didn't think I'd need ten thousand disclaimers, but here it is, then: assume that the three are of the same status, they have all done as much, there are no special circumstances, that the three are for all intents and purposes equal.
So when billy bakes a cake with two other people and then takes 2/3rds... is that fair? Well being modern day humans with our understanding of the definition of fairness it's easy to say no that is not fair.As if you couldn't come up with hypothetical situations where it would be fair in our times. That is not the point at all.
But if you go into different time periods there are many hypothetical situations where we can surmise that Billy taking 2/3rds of the cake is completely fair and justified to the people of that specific time period and or region, because they do not share our same understanding or current concept of fairness.
No? Where is that implied?
Right and wrong in the context of human ethical code is always qualitative. These qualities change in definition depending on what culture or individual you ask. If there are universal morals that address every thing, living or otherwise, where do they come from?Fairness is different from right and wrong and universal morals.
Fairness is different from right and wrong and universal morals.
So, you are describing exact equal result recieved for exact equal energy spent? What you are describing is a point that has nothing to do with people. If so why even bother to bring it up?No, that is not what I'm describing. If you and your two friends find a treasure chest while hiking, what would the fair division of the loot be? Would the answer be any different if you and your friends lived two thousand years ago? And no, you would not think it was "fair" if one of your friends got a larger share because he's capable of having you thrown in prison if you disagree.
A "fair price" for said work is extremely relative.
What If you and your two friends find a treasure chest while hiking, what would the fair division of the loot be? Would the answer be any different if you and your friends lived two thousand years ago? And no, you would not think it was "fair" if one of your friends got a larger share because he's capable of having you thrown in prison if you disagree.
As if you couldn't come up with hypothetical situations where it would be fair in our times. That is not the point at all.
Fairness is symmetry. Fairness is equal division of the cake (in this instance). Fairness is everyone getting their due. It's equal treatment. This is what fairness refers to, it isn't a social construct and it isn't dependent on culture.
If Dennis, Bob and John bake the cake, and Dennis is royalty and thus gets 2/3 of the cake, it isn't because their understanding of fairness is different. Do you really think that the peasant slaving at the fields for his life thinks it's fair that he has to pay half of what he makes as tax to the king? Here I thought it was a common trope for people to bitch about taxes, and nobility getting more than the peasants even though they do nothing but sit on their lazy asses. I don't think I've ever before heard anyone postulate that people think it's fair others get more than they do, while doing less.
Thats just a single "what if", where a "fair" division in all sense can be possible and determined. And even that "what if" can spread to multiple "what ifs". Generally fair is still relative when dealing with interaction with people. Cause each person puts his own price tag on everything. A moment where "fair" is not relative for a second, is a mere covincidence. Nothing else. Like 3 hikers coming across a treasurechest that can somehow easly be devided into 3.Yes, it's a single scenario, so of course it's a single what if. If there is even a single instance that works outside a particular time, then that means fairness refers to something other than a social construct. Contrary to the popular saying, an exception does not prove the rule. In real life it's often more difficult to determine what is fair, yes, but that is neither here nor there. It's like saying 2+2 isn't objectively true because 38431+219832 is harder to calculate.
I recall as a kid, me and my friend were walking and a saw 25 est crows(now like 2€, quite a lot of candymoney back than) flying in the air. I happened grab that. So we started arguing. I was like "hei, dickhead, if you didnt have me you wouldnt have even seen it". And he was "hei dumbass, without me you wouldnt even have been walking here". So I quess we decided to split it. Was it fair? I dunno. Its relative. Same with the hikers. What ifs count.
Fairness is different from right and wrong and universal morals.
Yes.What question?
So...what's your question?
What question?
What are you discussing in this thread? Is it a statement or a question?Currently, I'm discussing fairness.
Yes, it's a single scenario, so of course it's a single what if. If there is even a single instance that works outside a particular time, then that means fairness refers to something other than a social construct. Contrary to the popular saying, an exception does not prove the rule. In real life it's often more difficult to determine what is fair, yes, but that is neither here nor there. It's like saying 2+2 isn't objectively true because 38431+219832 is harder to calculate.
My overall point was that when dealing with other humans, fairness generally always refers to a social construct. What it is, is always defined by the society, laws and events. Just because there are occasions where it could be defined the same nomatter what society or laws, does not change that fact.How does what you said in any way support the notion that fairness "generally always" refers to a social construct?
Look, it was fun and all, but lets agree to disagree here shall we. :lol:
visitors can't see pics , please register or loginvisitors can't see pics , please register or login
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
visitors can't see pics , please register or loginvisitors can't see pics , please register or login