This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Morality
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
OverZealous
Not necessarily. I feel, morally, that it is wrong to take a human life. Period. What I would do, now that is another story. Morally, I don't support the military, but you are asking what I do in practice. What I do in practice I cannot justify with my moral views. I am my own harshest judge.
It's not wrong if the person deserved it, or it was done in self defense.
"Deserved it", however, is likely to be subjective.
So you're saying hitler did nothing to deserve death? And I seriously don't buy this idea that every last human being has vastly different morals, morals aren't subjective like people's opinions on the best color. Nobody in their right mind thinks its okay to throw acid in a woman's face for not wearing a veil over her face, nor is it being wrong subjective. Just because someone out there thinks its okay
does not make it okay
.
Absolute extremes willl not exactly prove your point. I have never stated that I don't think what Hitler did was morally wrong, nor have I called it morally acceptable to throw acid in a woman's face. It's when it comes to lesser things that "deserved it" will begin to vary from person to person.
An example; you repeatedly tell me that my sister is a ****, and I eventually snap and punch you in the face. Some people will tell you that punching you in the face was in fact morally acceptable, while some will say that punching people, no matter what (self-defense excluded), is morally wrong. Did you deserve getting a punch in the face? Or was I wrong to hit you? Tell me, is there a completely objective answer to that?
Edit: Oh, and couldn't we turn the "Just because someone out there thinks its okay does not make it okay." around, and say the opposite? "Just because someone out there thinks it isn't okay to do X, doesn't mean it isn't"?
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Actually Sold, a lot of people are and that's why it's a crime in many countries. There are many, many people who believe that responding to verbal taunts with violence is 100% wrong.
The problem here, is that you seem to be stuck in all or nothing mode. Either someone believes that ALL morality is subjective, or NONE of it is. You seem unable to comprehend that people would say "This, this and this are always wrong, but something smaller like this is a matter of perspective."
A moral relativist doesn't believe that any morality is set in stone.
A moral absolutionist believes that all morality is set in stone.
Most people can agree that some things are just universally wrong, and others are questionable.
Just about everyone who is arguing in this thread (including you) fall into that third category. So they are 100% correct in saying that they are not moral relativists, because there are certain moral principle that they would never accept as right regardless of the circumstances- child molestation, rape, child murder, etc.. You, on the other hand, are 100% incorrect when you say that you are a moral absolutionist because you make comment after comment about how different circumstances change whether or not something is wrong.
The most recent example is where you said you wouldn't return a refund if it was small, or a small percentage. That means that stealing, or not correcting someone's mistake, is only as wrong as the amount of damage it causes, and not wrong as a principle in and of itself. Even when you changed your mind, you did so because I pointed out additional damages that could be done, and not because of the base principle. That is relative morality.
It seems incredulous to the point of suspected trolling that you cannot understand that a person could be 100% against things like torture, rape, genocide, etc., but would be able to see both sides of the issue on an illegal parking job that was a semi-emergency.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Ok- then why do you keep calling people moral relativists when they don't meet your own definition, since they don't think that right and wrong are relative, but that certain actions have elements of both right and wrong in them?
Also, I find it interesting that you believe that there are objective rights and wrongs, but when push comes to shove and you were asked about specific examples (i.e. the change thing), you didn't say stealing was absolutely right and wrong, but it was only wrong relative to how much damage was done.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Actually, that specific quote was not in response to the acid comment itself. It was in response to the fact that every time someone tried to discuss situations that were actually morally grey, you refused to do so and instead brought up another example that was extreme and had no grey area.
Them: I understand what you are saying, but there are a lot of situations where there are less definitive answers about who's right and wrong, and what they deserve as a result.
You: So you think Hitler doesn't deserve to die?
Them: That's not what we said. We said in OTHER examples, there can be more of a grey area.
You: So you think that throwing acid in a person's face is a matter of opinion?
Them: No...we meant OTHER examples. You know...like revolving around parking tickets, and extra change, and social obligation dilemmas and not extreme, dramatic examples like you keep using that have no bearing on the conversation because they are in no way morally grey.
Basically, they want to talk about moral relativism in situations where it actually exists. And you keep refusing to, and bring up examples where there is no grey area. How about, instead of just telling people the same thing over and over you actually read- carefully- what they're saying, take a breath, and try to make the same points over the types of examples they are ACTUALLY using, and not the ones you throw in their face because you have no response to their arguments when they make them, you know, rationally.
Ok, it's a penny, noone cares about a penny, the only thing that matters in that situation is that the cashier who made the mistake might get fired for it, it is not morally right, or morally wrong, to not tell the cashier that he made a mistake in the bill if you do not know he might get in trouble for it.
And that, sir, is an argument stating that the morality is relative to how much damage you cause, and not about the base principle. Stealing, if you believe in right and wrong, is either one or the other, and could only be excused to prevent a greater wrong (like dying). If it is wrong, but since it's not a lot that was stolen it's "no big deal- no one cares," that would make stealing itself morally relative.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@Sold- the reason the penny comes up, is because it is the very essence of what other people's argument is- that some situations are minor or muddled, and so right and wrong in that situation are less clear cut. By your assertion of "It's just a penny, no one cares," you are agreeing that there are degrees of severity that affect morality...which is what people are trying to get you to admit. I bring it up because you have already admitted that there are cases in which they are right, but can't even recognize what you said for what it is.
Also, MyTie said "Deserved, however, is likely to be subjective." You're right...that "could" be interpreted as saying that any single person deserving to die, no matter who they are or what they've done, is subjective, but only by someone who has an agenda to push and is less concerned with having an actual discussion and responding to the points the person was making than with twisting the words to fit whatever imaginary dialog he's having with the rest of the discussion board.
What MyTie probably meant (which every other person here understood) is that some people might think someone deserves to die, others might not, and it's much harder to say which person is right IN CASES THAT ARE NOT ABOUT THE WORST GENOCIDAL MANIACS ON THE PLANET.
For example: A drunk driver gets into his car and kills a family. It wasn't intentional that he kill the family, he may or may not have had the presence of mind to realize he couldn't drive, but most certainly he didn't take the precaution of arranging a ride home before getting hammered. NO ONE thinks this was right, or that he shouldn't be punished. However, what he deserves might be based on what you believe is the best outcome:
1) One person might believe he deserves to die- a life for a life, real justice.
2) One person might believe that he should sit in jail and feel guilty for what he did. They might feel that the grief and guilt is a better punishment than death.
3) One person might feel that he deserves to die, but because killing a person takes a toll on the humanity of the killer, they may also feel that no one deserves to have to kill him and take that burden on themselves, and so they think he should live even though he doesn't deserve it, for the sake of others.
4) One person might want him to live because he could be used as a teaching tool to help others not make his mistake, and so they think that the best thing they can do to protect the innocent is to have him give speeches about how it ruined his life, and how horrible he feels for what he did, so other people might not drive drunk.
5) One person might think that he would only deserve to die if he intentionally killed someone, so while he deserves punishment death is too harsh.
I'm not saying that any of these are the right or wrong answer. What I am saying is that all of these concede that what he did was absolutely wrong. All of them want him to be punished as a result, and want to protect other people. But they differ on the opinion of what will work to help the most people, whether punishment is more important than prevention, and how harsh a punishment he deserves relative to his crime.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I think the issue here is that some one here (not naming names) is a grammatical and linguistic relativist, and so doesn't conform to generally accepted definitions of words and understanding of sentences.
Post by
OverZealous
Are you guys confusing me with MyTie? How intimidating.
Post by
Adamsm
I think the issue here is that some one here (not naming names) is a grammatical and linguistic relativist, and so doesn't conform to generally accepted definitions of words and understanding of sentences.
You are just figuring that out now, after he made two other threads, and still can't get the definitions down?
Post by
MyTie
Also, MyTie said "Deserved, however, is likely to be subjective."
No no no, mytie said "deserving to die is subjective"
Are you guys confusing me with MyTie? How intimidating.
Allow me to quote him and clear up the confusion:I'm sure that lots of people deserve to die. I'm sure Kony deserves to die. No doubt. I just don't think you, me, or anyone else is qualified to decide who they are.I don't think what MyTie means here is that "who deserves to die" is subjective or objective. It could mean that "people who deserve to die" are objective, but that we don't have an way of measuring it. Maybe there are people who truly, objectively, deserve nothing but a slow and painful death. But, who is going to be the one to decide that? Who could measure it? If it is objective, which it might be, how do we know the "yeas" from the "nays"? If it is subjective, then we can't use that as a reliable measure. So, either way, objective or subjective, neither is good enough to say "yes this person deserves to die", because we have no way of drawing a line between the two groups of people. It is, therefore, more moral to simply admit that we are not qualified to decide that, and always take the morally higher ground of allowing life.
Edit: But maybe I'm wrong. You'll have to ask MyTie what he meant.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Oh- sorry OZ. Sold said it was you, and for some reason I took his word on it. I guess I'll have to check all his references from now on.
And sorry MyTie- Sold misquoted you, referencing something OZ said. I meant to be commenting on what OZ said- hopefully, other than relying on Sold's faulty information, I got it right though.
Post by
OverZealous
@Some guy attempting to explain just what this "MyTie" person was talking about.
Also,
MyTie
said
"Deserved, however, is likely to be subjective"
Not necessarily. I feel, morally, that it is wrong to take a human life. Period. What I would do, now that is another story. Morally, I don't support the military, but you are asking what I do in practice. What I do in practice I cannot justify with my moral views. I am my own harshest judge.
It's not wrong if the person deserved it, or it was done in self defense.
"Deserved it", however, is likely to be subjective
.
That's really all I was talking about - misquoting you. Anyway, I think I'm done in this thread. Honestly, it's not really getting anywhere.
Oh- sorry OZ. Sold said it was you, and for some reason I took his word on it. I guess I'll have to check all his references from now on.
And sorry MyTie- Sold misquoted you, referencing something OZ said. I meant to be commenting on what OZ said- hopefully, other than relying on Sold's faulty information, I got it right though.
Yes, yes, I'm sure it's very hard to tell us apart
:)
Post by
MyTie
Yes, yes, I'm sure it's very hard to tell us apart
:)
Let's not get ahead of ourselves.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.