This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.

Morality

Return to board index

Post by OverZealous

I don't personally support people going around stabbing others, even if they find it morally acceptable - but that doesn't change the fact that morality is inherently subjective. You can accept that morals are relative without being a person that shrugs of everything as different morals, such as the people you describe in your example(s).

The problem with your argument is that it relies on the idea that if anyone disagrees on a moral, it's subjective, without considering that the person may have the wrong idea of morality. People can believe something is okay when it's obviously wrong, if they're raised to believe it's okay, because they don't know any better.

Who's to say that you're right and they're wrong, though? And, besides - I don't think something that cannot be proven factually can be "obviously wrong" - that this discussion has gone on for twenty-five pages kind of agrees with me, too.

That said, I see it as if people disagree on a moral, there is more than one way to look at it. All of them may be subjectively right, but none of them can be objectively right because they all disagree and there is no way to factually support your views on morals. One can Godwin all one wants, but that remains the same.

A question though; if seven billion people agree that X is wrong, but a single person thinks that X is right, do you think it's possible that X could actually be morally right? I can see your argument that ninety people may be right when ninety-five are wrong, but when taken to such extremes, do you still feel that there is an objective right and wrong, even if seven billion people agree that the "objective wrong" is actually right?

And sorry if I'm being incomprehensible or incoherent, I've been writing essays in three languages over the past few hours, so something in this post may have been worded in a completely weird way.

So...again, no real responses, you just descend into trolling eh Sold? After the repeated warnings in this thread?

I say let the mods decide on that; let's not go all police on him: after all, that could get nasty

Post by 588688

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by OverZealous

So...again, no real responses, you just descend into trolling eh Sold? After the repeated warnings in this thread?

I have a point tho, someone simply disagreeing with another person on right and wrong does not make right and wrong subjective, one of those 2 people has the wrong idea and the other has the right idea.

I know this'll come off as a bit cheap, but (I had to) that's subjective.

Post by 588688

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by Adamsm

So...again, no real responses, you just descend into trolling eh Sold? After the repeated warnings in this thread?

I have a point tho, someone simply disagreeing with another person on right and wrong does not make right and wrong subjective, one of those 2 people has the wrong idea and the other has the right idea.

But that's still subjective: Look at you and your 'definition' of what morals are; large number of people here disagree with what you say, and you disagree with what they say...it's hard to tell who is right or wrong in these cases.

And no, you have an opinion, that you are trying to use a 'true' point, no matter how many times people poke holes in it, showing you it's not as simple as you'd like to believe it is.

I mean, look at your last few responses right here in regards to rape; you haven't proved at all that the view point isn't subjective.

With that, I win the argument.Stop saying this: Just because you declare yourself the winner doesn't make it true and is continued Trolling.

Post by 588688

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by Adamsm

I agree that it's my opinion: Doesn't make mine wrong and yours right by any stretch of the imagination.

Post by OverZealous

So...again, no real responses, you just descend into trolling eh Sold? After the repeated warnings in this thread?

I have a point tho, someone simply disagreeing with another person on right and wrong does not make right and wrong subjective, one of those 2 people has the wrong idea and the other has the right idea.

I know this'll come off as a bit cheap, but (I had to) that's subjective.

Morals being subjective is subjective, I disagree that morals are subjective, so do other people, I guess we can't say morals are objectively subjective then can we? With that, I win the argument.

Okay man, I give up. Morals being objective is also subjective, so I guess I win the argument?

/signing out

Post by 588688

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by Adamsm

I agree that it's my opinion: Doesn't make mine wrong and yours right by any stretch of the imagination.

So if morals being subjective is subjective, I guess you don't really have a point.

I have a point: Reality shows that not every single person ever agrees that one thing is moral and another isn't, which lends evidence to the idea that morals are subjective and not Black and White.

Post by 588688

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by Adamsm

But you are proving my point in doing so Sold.

Edit: So I thank you for that.

Post by 588688

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by Adamsm

But all morality is based on a person, not on the culture they came from...so yes, to me, that means it's subjective, even if that means some people think cruel and vicious crimes are okay. So...yeah, just like in reality, where things are subjective depending on who is reporting it, morality hits that too.

Just because some stupid sick &*!@ thinks rape is okay doesn't make it's morality subjective, that means that the person who thinks it's okay is a stupid sick !@#$, and his view on morality is not to be taken seriously.But it's not just one stupid sick $%^&; it's a large number of stupid sick %^&*s...so tell me Sold, how is it that all of them are just the exceptions?

It's obviously wrong because it's forcing intercourse on another person who doesn't want it, and it can traumatize them afterwards, any rational sane human being with a conscience knows it's wrong.X is wrong because Y happens can be used for any number of things: Making nudist put on clothes is wrong because you are traumatizing them by forcing them to do something that is against their beliefs...etc etc etc.

Post by 588688

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by Adamsm

Common freaking sense tells any sane rational human being that's it wrong to rape another person. But they are just as sane and rational as you are: How can they be so subjective to others morals?
I'm convinced relativists are just plain amoral.Your opinion is not the truth, since you've yet to come anywhere remotely close to actually hitting what a Relativist is.

Post by 588688

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by Adamsm

No, actually, they aren't, if they believe that.Sorry, but they are: There are still police officers out there who believe that all rape claims are just the women feeling bad about a one night stand; if they were really 'insane' they wouldn't be working as cops.

Ya it's called you, hatman, overzealous, askawa, elhonna, and feld because you believe morals are subjective.BWHAHAHAHAHA! I'm not a Relativist by any stretch of the imagination...so yeah, you just plucked a word out of the air to use, but you have no idea what it really means...thanks for playing Sold.

Post by 588688

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by asakawa

There's a topic on moral relativism. Since discussion of that subject is preventing this thread's discussion from occurring naturally I'd like any further points anyone has on that subject to happen there.
Thanks.

Post Reply

© 2021 Fanbyte