Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 15 of 25 FirstFirst ... 5 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ... LastLast
Results 281 to 300 of 485
  1. #281
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    419
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I believe that would be a straw-man version of their position. The personal opinion of being the superior race was a part of it I'm sure.
    The Nazi's had multiple positions concerning the Jews. Part of it was that Hitler felt the Jews were responsible for the hardships that Germany faced after WWI. Hitler's view of a superior Aryan race was another. Which is also flawed, since there really is essentially very, very, very, very little genetic differences between the different 'races' of humanity, and none of which would really establish anything concerning superiority.

    But this is drifting off topic.

    I noted that, however it doesn't contribute because it doesn't reach the level of obligation/duty.
    You can criticize the logic of others, but you can not establish that their conclusion is wrong.
    Just because I can't establish objective obligation/duties doesn't mean I can't contribute. Do you say that you are unable to contribute to a discussion about movies, since you believe that the quality of movies is entirely subjective?

    The contribution here is that I can tell them that their justification is inherently flawed, which might result in an adjustment of their reasoning to reach a different conclusion. If I can change somebody's conclusion based upon my input, is this not a contribution?

    I'm not going to try and shut you up. Just note the limitations of your view.
    You have every right to make noise, it is just limited to that.
    Ah, now that's special. You've equated opinions with "noise". Again, you're essentially asserting that opinions have no meaning or significance.

    Opinions have meaning. They have significance.

    Care for a slice of pie? It contains one of my favorite ingredients. Pig ****.
    ~Zealous

  2. #282
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    I'm not sure if anyone saw my other point, but it seems that the if killing children is objectively immoral and God killed children then doesn't that make God immoral too?
    Your point was addressed by MT.

    ---------- Post added at 07:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:39 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by ZealousDemon View Post
    Ah, now that's special. You've equated opinions with "noise". Again, you're essentially asserting that opinions have no meaning or significance.

    Opinions have meaning. They have significance.
    My expanded explanation is still forthcoming...but this is where your position goes south. Both you and Sig display a gross ignorance about this concept when you say things like this. You both are guilty of equivocating. When we use the term "opinion" here, we do not mean merely "position" as is commonly used in the vernacular. We use the term as it is defined in philosophy, as it is defined by theories of knowledge, as it is defined in epistemology. This is a continuing problem, and one of the reasons I've slowed down in my discussions here. There are some here at ODN who are simply unaware (for whatever reason) of the proper philosophical usages of terms and concepts, and thus it requires exposing them to this knowledge...but more often than not, such people have no desire to further their own education or to progress...they are here only to argue, not to move forward.

    I explained this concept briefly in one of my previous, earlier posts...in quote by professor Rachels. Yet...the uneducated ignored it or believed it to be irrelevant.

    How do you suppose, those who have not training or knowledge or education in a particular subject, ZD...can be communicated to effectively about that which they have exposed a complete and utter ignorance of? And why do you think such people believe they know all they need to know about the subject and have no need of further knowledge about it? Do you know what Socrates and Plato said about such people?

    *edit*

    I realize after the fact, that this post may seem abrasive...but that is not my intent, I apologize if my language isn't better worded (and I've changed the language a bit). There is a an actual obstacle to overcome here...how to communicate ideas that others simply do not understand or outright refuse to understand (a "willful ignorance"). Discourse in such circumstances is incredibly difficult as well as highly frustrating...and I don't know that any progress can be made when someone believes they already know all there is to know and they have no further need of improving their own understanding.
    Last edited by Apokalupsis; January 20th, 2013 at 09:42 AM.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  3. #283
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    Quote Originally Posted by ZD
    Just because I can't establish objective obligation/duties doesn't mean I can't contribute
    no, no. I don't say that you can't contribute because you can't establish an OBJECTIVE obligation/duty.
    Sig has argued that there are subjectively established obligations and duties. My objection to him is very different than what I am saying to you.

    Your position does not even try to assert or establish a SUBJECTIVE obligation/duty. You admit that you can not.

    That fact precludes you from a "moral" discussion. If you want to debate the logic of a position, that is fine. If you hold that a position is logically incoherent, you are good. If you are to argue that it is "immoral", then you are required to at least assert an obligation/duty.
    To serve man.

  4. #284
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    419
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Your position does not even try to assert or establish a SUBJECTIVE obligation/duty. You admit that you can not.

    That fact precludes you from a "moral" discussion.
    Why?

    You keep saying this. You keep saying that morality requires that I establish an obligation for others. That I can't just establish an obligation for myself and recognize that others can establish obligations for themselves.

    Why is it necessary for me to establish or assert my viewpoint onto others as an real, existent obligation in order for me to engage in a morality discussion? Why can't I attempt to correct flawed moral reasoning? Why can't I try and convince others to share the same subjective values as myself?
    ~Zealous

  5. #285
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    Quote Originally Posted by ZD
    Why?

    You keep saying this. You keep saying that morality requires that I establish an obligation for others. That I can't just establish an obligation for myself and recognize that others can establish obligations for themselves.
    Because the question in the OP is regarding the obligation and duties of others.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZD
    Why is it necessary for me to establish or assert my viewpoint onto others as an real, existent obligation in order for me to engage in a morality discussion?
    Because the question is regarding what obligation they have and how.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZD
    Why can't I attempt to correct flawed moral reasoning? Why can't I try and convince others to share the same subjective values as myself?
    Because addressing the logic of a position, does not address the morality of the decision.

    For example.
    A man breaks into my house with the intent to rape and kill my wife and children. He is wearing matching socks.
    I shoot him because he is wearing mismatched socks and I simply will not stand for such offensive attire in my home.

    Question to opponent.Was it moral for me to shoot him?

    You quickly point out that I was incorrect in my understanding of the situation, and that my logical reasoning was flawed.
    Does that make the action immoral? Or does it just make my reasoning for an otherwise moral act incorrect?


    The point being, that in the case of morality attacking the logic and arguments which were the reason for doing the act, is not itself an argument that the act is moral/immoral.
    To serve man.

  6. #286
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    Quote Originally Posted by ZealousDemon View Post
    Why?

    You keep saying this. You keep saying that morality requires that I establish an obligation for others. That I can't just establish an obligation for myself and recognize that others can establish obligations for themselves.

    Why is it necessary for me to establish or assert my viewpoint onto others as an real, existent obligation in order for me to engage in a morality discussion? Why can't I attempt to correct flawed moral reasoning? Why can't I try and convince others to share the same subjective values as myself?
    Because that is what ethical theory is ZD. That is the study of ethics...that is the FUNCTION of an ethicist. We discuss not what we ought to do ourselves...but what society ought to do. For example...should society allow people to kidnap and molest children then sacrifice them to the moon god?

    We do not ask "Should I kidnap, molest, etc..?" Although that question CAN be asked, we are not interested in that question. We are discussing what people ought to do and ought not to do. We can provide reasoning for this, and we have different STANDARDS by which we determine something to be a violation of that moral code. But reasoning (justification) and the standard by which we use, are entirely different to the concept of "When discussing ethics...are we only referring to only ourselves or are we also referring to others?" It's always the inclusion of others. Why? Because are attempting to persuade others...not ourselves. We are attempting to persuade others than it is NOT ok to kidnap chidren. We are saying that no child ought to be molested. We are saying that children ought not to be sacrificed to any god, by people (which INCLUDES ourselves).

    We have many laws that are built upon moral values. These moral values are not merely for the individual, but for society. We are saying through these laws that it is not moral to murder people, kidnap children, molest children, kill them, etc... We don't say "This law is only for me because it is what I believe." We say "This law applies to all because NONE should do this type of harm to another."

    See that "none should do"? That's a PRESCRIPTION. See what the subject is? "all [people]". You are operating as if the subject of the moral statement is or can only be the self. Yet...this is not what the subject of the statement is at all. You are ignoring philosophy, logic, history, sociology, law, etc... You are outside the universe of discourse...either intentionally or unintentionally.

    We don't care that YOU personally follow a particular code. That's not what is being discussed. What IS being discussed, is the CONCEPT that others are. And we describe this concept through prescriptive language using "oughts" and "ought nots."
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  7. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  8. #287
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    419
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Because the question in the OP is regarding the obligation and duties of others.

    Because the question is regarding what obligation they have and how.
    You should probably re-read the OP, because you keep referencing this question in the OP that doesn't exist. The challenge of the OP was for the relativist to support the claim that it is moral to kill somebody. The question of whether or not we can establish an obligation for others is entirely separate.

    Because addressing the logic of a position, does not address the morality of the decision.
    True. And I never said does. What makes it a contribution is whether I can change a person's perceptions upon their moral beliefs based on whether or not their justification is flawed or not. That I can change beliefs without addressing any inherent trueness or falseness of the beliefs means I do contribute to discussions. Again, you seem to be making the claim that any subject which is based upon subjective preferences should not be discussed. But we do this AAAAALLLLL THE TIME.

    Just because a topic is subjective does not preclude it from discussion.

    For example.
    A man breaks into my house with the intent to rape and kill my wife and children. He is wearing matching socks.
    I shoot him because he is wearing mismatched socks and I simply will not stand for such offensive attire in my home.

    Was it moral for me to shoot him?

    You quickly point out that I was incorrect in my understanding of the situation, and that my logical reasoning was flawed.
    Does that make the action immoral? Or does it just make my reasoning for an otherwise moral act incorrect?
    Technically, I'm not yet convinced that your reasoning wasn't incorrect or flawed. Your views on matching socks might represent a subjective preference, not a reflection of reality, and the fact that you kill a man based upon matching socks is technically logically consistent with those views.

    So, what I would attempt to engage you upon is a further exploration of your views on matching socks, rape, and murder, and attempt to see if there's some other reasoning involved that leads to inconsistencies in your views, or maybe I can convince you that killing people due to matching socks is really a dumb thing, and your position changes.

    It should be noted that since I believe in subjective morality, that I believe that everybody is on equal footing when making moral statements. To be more specific, I do not given greater weight to subjective moral statements made by people who claim morality is objective then to subjective moral statements made by people who claim morality is subjective.

    Why should I, believing that morality is subjective, allow people who I believe to be wrong about the nature of morality hold a monopoly on moral discussions and claims? Are their views any more powerful or valid then mine? No! Their moral assessments would be just as subjective as mine are.

    In other words, I ain't shuttin' up. I'm going to continue to make moral claims. I'm going to continue arguing them. I'm going to continue trying to change people's opinions upon morality. I'm open to the idea of an objective moral standard as long as you can present evidence that such a standard exists without just simply asserting it as so.

    Because that is what ethical theory is ZD. That is the study of ethics...that is the FUNCTION of an ethicist. We discuss not what we ought to do ourselves...but what society ought to do. For example...should society allow people to kidnap and molest children then sacrifice them to the moon god?

    We do not ask "Should I kidnap, molest, etc..?" Although that question CAN be asked, we are not interested in that question. We are discussing what people ought to do and ought not to do.


    The idea that people are not interested in asking moral questions of themselves self is ********.

    People absolutely do have moral conflicts where they try to determine whether they 'ought' to do something or not. Are you really making the claim that morality never concerns itself with decisions made by the self?

    On the other point, in my view, the ethicist cannot necessarily establish establish such an obligation for others. Instead, what the ethicist does when trying to determine what society ought to do is actually recognize the obligations of others to themselves, and makes an argument, from their own perspective, that the society should hold the same obligation as the ethicist. The ethcist thus attempts to get the society to agree with their own subjective preferences. The ethicist can point out flawed logical reasoning. The ethicist might convince others to share their moral opinion. Whether the ethicist thinks he/she can establish obligations for others does not change the facts of whether or not they actually can.

    We have many laws that are built upon moral values. These moral values are not merely for the individual, but for society. We are saying through these laws that it is not moral to murder people, kidnap children, molest children, kill them, etc... We don't say "This law is only for me because it is what I believe." We say "This law applies to all because NONE should do this type of harm to another."


    The application of law and the application of morality is different. Law concerns what the society ought to do, based upon the moral consensus of the lawmakers. Morality concerns what individuals ought to do, regardless of what particular society they belong.

    See that "none should do"? That's a PRESCRIPTION.


    That I prescribe something does not necessarily obligate you to follow the prescription. I can say "you should watch this movie" but that doesn't mean that you're actually required to do so.

    ----------------


    I'm just going to state this clearly for the record.

    At no point, and I'm talking to both Apok and MindTrap here, have either of you ever established that you know that moral facts exist.
    You have never demonstrated that your moral statements are solely based upon facts, and preferences are never involved.
    In this thread, there's been a lot of begging the question. There's been objections to definitions. There has been objections to the limitations of the position.

    But at no point has there ever been a single point been forwarded that morality is NOT subjective that has not been inherently fallacious. Mican is right, every single point made against subjectivists can be made against objectivists until objectivists can show that morality is actually objective. All you do is ask me to infer the existence of such facts based upon the consequences if they are not.

    You must present evidence that morality is objective, or you have no legs to stand on.

    We've got over 200 posts since I originally asked the claims of objective morality to be supported. It has still never happened. Until such claims can be supported, this debate goes nowhere.
    ~Zealous

  9. #288
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    Quote Originally Posted by ZD
    You should probably re-read the OP, because you keep referencing this question in the OP that doesn't exist. The challenge of the OP was for the relativist to support the claim that it is moral to kill somebody. The question of whether or not we can establish an obligation for others is entirely separate.
    The op challenges the moral relativist to support his claim that morals are relative by providing the conditions or rules that allow for a commonly agreed upon immoral act to be moral.

    You have generally answered with how you don't think it is ever moral, as a reference to your personal opinion.
    You have supported the coherency of the statement by arguing that you can establish morals for yourself.

    What you have not done is address the challenge, and when confronted with an example of your moral system being used and being said to be "correctly" (according to your standard) place an opposite value... You objected.


    As to the question of if you can establish a moral obligation in others, is relevant to the coherency of any moral statement.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZD
    True. And I never said does. What makes it a contribution is whether I can change a person's perceptions upon their moral beliefs based on whether or not their justification is flawed or not. That I can change beliefs without addressing any inherent trueness or falseness of the beliefs means I do contribute to discussions. Again, you seem to be making the claim that any subject which is based upon subjective preferences should not be discussed. But we do this AAAAALLLLL THE TIME.

    Just because a topic is subjective does not preclude it from discussion.
    But that does not apply here. Here we are speaking of a hypothetical, and regarding people you can not influence with your argumentation.

    When examples of the past are brought up, you have equal "effect".
    The nazis do not care with your reasoning, nor will history be "convinced" and change their minds due to your wisdom.


    Quote Originally Posted by ZD
    Technically, I'm not yet convinced that your reasoning wasn't incorrect or flawed. Your views on matching socks might represent a subjective preference, not a reflection of reality, and the fact that you kill a man based upon matching socks is technically logically consistent with those views.
    Interesting, so according to your general theory of morality, it is a valid moral position to kill someone based on the color of their socks?

    Quote Originally Posted by ZD
    So, what I would attempt to engage you upon is a further exploration of your views on matching socks, rape, and murder, and attempt to see if there's some other reasoning involved that leads to inconsistencies in your views, or maybe I can convince you that killing people due to matching socks is really a dumb thing, and your position changes.
    Right, but even if my position changes... I still killed a guy because his socks didn't match... not because he was threatening my family.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZD
    It should be noted that since I believe in subjective morality, that I believe that everybody is on equal footing when making moral statements. To be more specific, I do not given greater weight to subjective moral statements made by people who claim morality is objective then to subjective moral statements made by people who claim morality is subjective.

    Why should I, believing that morality is subjective, allow people who I believe to be wrong about the nature of morality hold a monopoly on moral discussions and claims? Are their views any more powerful or valid then mine? No! Their moral assessments would be just as subjective as mine are.
    First, lets establish that your view is coherent. If you want to submit to the idea that your idea is irrelevant, and so is objective morality as a consequence, then I would take that as a concession to this thread. Then in some other thread, we could discuss the relevance of the objective moral position, and agree that if you can equate it to the subjective position, then it too would be equally as irrelevant.

    I don't believe you have made that concession yet, so we will hold off on any discussion regarding the relevance of objective morality.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZD
    In other words, I ain't shuttin' up. I'm going to continue to make moral claims. I'm going to continue arguing them. I'm going to continue trying to change people's opinions upon morality. I'm open to the idea of an objective moral standard as long as you can present evidence that such a standard exists without just simply asserting it as so.
    That is fine, however if you repeat unsupported claims that have been challenged and addressed you should keep the "trolling" rules in mind.
    Repeating a claim is not an argument. I am not asking you to remain silent, but have provided argumentation that shows your opinion to be irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Specifically regarding Hypothetical situations, and historical events.

    ------

    OBJECTIVE MORALITY IS NOT THE QUESTION

    Quote Originally Posted by ZD
    I'm just going to state this clearly for the record.

    At no point, and I'm talking to both Apok and MindTrap here, have either of you ever established that you know that moral facts exist.
    You have never demonstrated that your moral statements are solely based upon facts, and preferences are never involved.
    In this thread, there's been a lot of begging the question. There's been objections to definitions. There has been objections to the limitations of the position.
    The question has never, not once, not for a moment involved the value of absolute morality.
    It has always been about the ability of the subjective moralist to justify their position and maintain a coherent position through examination.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZD
    But at no point has there ever been a single point been forwarded that morality is NOT subjective that has not been inherently fallacious. Mican is right, every single point made against subjectivists can be made against objectivists until objectivists can show that morality is actually objective. All you do is ask me to infer the existence of such facts based upon the consequences if they are not.
    Yes, the problem is that it is the burden of the subjective moralist to establish the relevance and coherence of their own position.


    Quote Originally Posted by ZD
    You must present evidence that morality is objective, or you have no legs to stand on.
    No, you must support that your position is coherent and relevant... or your version of the MANY subjective morality positions doesn't have a leg to stand on. It is my belief that it is th.is fact which motivates the repeated attempts to shift attention to the objective moral truths.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZD
    We've got over 200 posts since I originally asked the claims of objective morality to be supported. It has still never happened. Until such claims can be supported, this debate goes nowhere.
    You have been answered, many times regarding this in this thread. I believe I went as far as to say that here I am not holding to the objective morality position.
    To serve man.

  10. #289
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like
    ZD, are there objective truths?

    Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S2 : via Tapatalk
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  11. #290
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    419
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The op challenges the moral relativist to support his claim that morals are relative by providing the conditions or rules that allow for a commonly agreed upon immoral act to be moral.

    You have generally answered with how you don't think it is ever moral, as a reference to your personal opinion.
    You have supported the coherency of the statement by arguing that you can establish morals for yourself.

    What you have not done is address the challenge, and when confronted with an example of your moral system being used and being said to be "correctly" (according to your standard) place an opposite value... You objected.
    Because the challenge is fundamentally flawed. My opinion is that the act is immoral. The opinion of the killer might have been (hard to know for sure) that the act was moral. There are no 'true' or 'false' moral statements, so the opinions are all that are. The relativist belief does not assume the existence of some sort of supreme mediator that can determine the correctness of any moral position.

    If you require anything else to be said, then you are asking for information that is not a requirement of the position.

    But that does not apply here. Here we are speaking of a hypothetical, and regarding people you can not influence with your argumentation.

    When examples of the past are brought up, you have equal "effect".
    The nazis do not care with your reasoning, nor will history be "convinced" and change their minds due to your wisdom.
    The Nazis, nor history, may care for my opinion. But my opinion in regarding the Nazis and the Holocaust is applicable to governments and genocide in general. Thus to engage in a conversation about the morality or immorality of the Nazis is to better understand each other's own sense of morality.

    Interesting, so according to your general theory of morality, it is a valid moral position to kill someone based on the color of their socks?
    It is certainly a "moral" position. It concerns of morality. Your use of the term 'valid' implies that there exists 'invalid' moral positions. These terms carry some of the same connotations as 'true/false', 'right/wrong', 'correct/incorrect'. In their strictest form, these exist only within objective contexts.

    Right, but even if my position changes... I still killed a guy because his socks didn't match... not because he was threatening my family.
    True, but I'm not sure what your point is. Once your position changes, you'll stop killing people due to their socks.

    First, lets establish that your view is coherent. If you want to submit to the idea that your idea is irrelevant, and so is objective morality as a consequence, then I would take that as a concession to this thread. Then in some other thread, we could discuss the relevance of the objective moral position, and agree that if you can equate it to the subjective position, then it too would be equally as irrelevant.

    I don't believe you have made that concession yet, so we will hold off on any discussion regarding the relevance of objective morality.
    Look, if you feel that the objectivist position is irrelevant to this thread, why did Apok include the claims of objectivists in the OP? Did Apok call "backsies"? You and Apok have also made multiple claims to support objective morality and then you say that such claims are irrelevant. It's ridiculous.

    There's no reason for you to be targeting subjective morality in particular if all your objections apply to objective morality equally. So for you to justify doing so, you should explain how objective morality is exempt from your objections.

    That is fine, however if you repeat unsupported claims that have been challenged and addressed you should keep the "trolling" rules in mind.
    What claims remain unsupported? What am I repeating that needs support? I have no idea what you're referring to.

    Repeating a claim is not an argument.
    I agree, so why do you keep doing it?

    OBJECTIVE MORALITY IS NOT THE QUESTION
    And yet your claims of objective morality are often the backbones of your objections! You can't make an argument where your own claims need not be supported!

    Yes, the problem is that it is the burden of the subjective moralist to establish the relevance and coherence of their own position.
    Which I have done.

    You have been answered, many times regarding this in this thread. I believe I went as far as to say that here I am not holding to the objective morality position.
    Then what position ARE you holding? You have established that you believe that morality exists, which means you aren't a moral skeptic.

    ---------- Post added at 06:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:00 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    ZD, are there objective truths?
    Yes. We can observe them empirically, assuming our senses are accurate.

    There are also objective truths which cannot be truly determined for certain, like those of thoughts, eg. it is objectively true that I believe that morality is subjective. Although you technically have no way to know that for sure.

    Might be other objective truths, but none that I can think of off the top of my head right now.
    ~Zealous

  12. #291
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    Quote Originally Posted by ZD
    Because the challenge is fundamentally flawed. My opinion is that the act is immoral. The opinion of the killer might have been (hard to know for sure) that the act was moral. There are no 'true' or 'false' moral statements, so the opinions are all that are. The relativist belief does not assume the existence of some sort of supreme mediator that can determine the correctness of any moral position.

    If you require anything else to be said, then you are asking for information that is not a requirement of the position.
    I know.. that is why I said you have nothing to contribute to this thread according to your position.


    Quote Originally Posted by ZD
    The Nazis, nor history, may care for my opinion. But my opinion in regarding the Nazis and the Holocaust is applicable to governments and genocide in general. Thus to engage in a conversation about the morality or immorality of the Nazis is to better understand each other's own sense of morality.
    Right, but here we are DISCUSSING, and you said that the basis for your positions relevance was it's power to convince. So to the question of the morality of any past event, everyone with your position has nothing to contribute.


    Quote Originally Posted by ZD
    It is certainly a "moral" position. It concerns of morality. Your use of the term 'valid' implies that there exists 'invalid' moral positions. These terms carry some of the same connotations as 'true/false', 'right/wrong', 'correct/incorrect'. In their strictest form, these exist only within objective contexts.
    Here I used "valid" to mean adherence to the position morality you ascribe to.
    So if you say that morality is a personal opinion, and I base it on something other, then my position is not a valid reflection of your position.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZD
    True, but I'm not sure what your point is. Once your position changes, you'll stop killing people due to their socks.
    Yes, but that says nothing to what I have done already. You are still talking about yourself and what you would have done, you have not said anything about what I should have done.
    You are appealing to logic in order to change my mind... wonderful, but that doesn't address if it was moral for me to kill someone for the wrong color socks.



    Quote Originally Posted by ZD
    Look, if you feel that the objectivist position is irrelevant to this thread, why did Apok include the claims of objectivists in the OP? Did Apok call "backsies"? You and Apok have also made multiple claims to support objective morality and then you say that such claims are irrelevant. It's ridiculous.

    There's no reason for you to be targeting subjective morality in particular if all your objections apply to objective morality equally. So for you to justify doing so, you should explain how objective morality is exempt from your objections.
    That has been clarified already.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZD
    What claims remain unsupported? What am I repeating that needs support? I have no idea what you're referring to.
    The claim that X is immoral. Where X is the situation in the OP, or the examples used in the thread.
    And where the claim is intended to be a response to the question of if the act was immoral in that the people who did it had a duty to not do it, or an obligation that they failed to meet.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZD
    I agree, so why do you keep doing it?
    I do not.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZD
    And yet your claims of objective morality are often the backbones of your objections! You can't make an argument where your own claims need not be supported!
    I am not.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZD
    Which I have done.
    I have a standing, unrebutted response to that already.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZD
    Then what position ARE you holding? You have established that you believe that morality exists, which means you aren't a moral skeptic.
    Here I have said "I do not know".
    Like the man in a box example.. I said "I do not know if he should be in the box".
    To which I was told(by sig I believe) that I can make up my own mind.

    The exchange however shows that I am taking the position of "I do not know". I can still evaluate if you say something coherent,consistent or answers the question I asked.
    To serve man.

  13. #292
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,707
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    I'm going to drop the objective morality comparison for the time being and therefore did not respond to any points concerning that.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Your Dhamer statement was one.
    Now I'm confused. You said I can make no moral claims about Dahmer because it does not effect anything. And now you are saying that my Dahmer quote was a moral claim.

    Give me the definition of "Moral Claim". Make a "dictionary entry" for the sake of debate because it looks like the definition changes in the middle of the debate. You don't need to consult the dictionary, just tell me EXACTLY what you mean when you use the term.

    Likewise define "Obligation" for the purpose of the debate because I'm fuzzy on what you mean by that.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    If morality must establish a duty/obligation in order to properly be called "morality", and subjective morality is shown to fail and it is the only option
    then it is self defeating, and people should dismiss it.
    Support or retract that morality must establish a duty/obligation in order to properly be called "morality".


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    If that is the case then you penalize people for not "pretending" the same as you.
    And there is no reason that I cannot do this.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Because you are not in the hypothetical. Your standard is being put into the hypothetical.
    What's the difference? If I think X is immoral then my standard in this reality and any hypothetical that can exist is that X is immoral.

  14. #293
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Now I'm confused. You said I can make no moral claims about Dahmer because it does not effect anything. And now you are saying that my Dahmer quote was a moral claim.

    Give me the definition of "Moral Claim". Make a "dictionary entry" for the sake of debate because it looks like the definition changes in the middle of the debate. You don't need to consult the dictionary, just tell me EXACTLY what you mean when you use the term.

    Likewise define "Obligation" for the purpose of the debate because I'm fuzzy on what you mean by that.
    Right.. You said give you an example of an actual moral claim.
    I said your Dhamer claim was an example of one.
    My objection to you making the Dhamer claim is that it is not one that your position (here in thread) can make.

    I am not using a strange version of "obligation". It is an action you are bound to do.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Support or retract that morality must establish a duty/obligation in order to properly be called "morality".
    Unless you want to use the EXACT same definition of "opinion", in which case using the word "moral" becomes repetitive and meaningless, then you must include the idea of duty/obligation to it. Morality deals with ought's, and ought's deal with obligations/duties.
    So unless you establish or at least assert a duty/obligation, then you are not speaking of a moral claim. ZD defended this point by saying that oughts are created by self and pertain to the self only. So, I'm a bit confused as to what grounds make you think oughts, duties/obligations are not involved in moral statements? Moreover, what does that definition of morality(one that does not reference duties/obligations/oughts) look like?


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And there is no reason that I cannot do this.
    Indeed, but you can not accurately call it "moral". per my argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    What's the difference?
    The difference is... you aren't a part of the hypothetical.
    It's like me saying. "If super man didn't have is powers and doomsday didn't have their powers who would win".
    And you keep saying "Green lantern would win, because he would still have his powers".

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If I think X is immoral then my standard in this reality and any hypothetical that can exist is that X is immoral.
    I think you are not referring to standard the same as I am. Here I mean the philosophical construct minus all the "opinion" values you plug into it.
    That construct exists in all situations it is what makes morality "subjective".

    Your use of standard only exists if YOU exist. Because you don't exist in the hypothetical, neither does your "standard"(your use).
    To serve man.

  15. #294
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,707
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    At this point I'm not challenging your argument but instead trying to nail it down. So assume all points made are for clarification purposes.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Right.. You said give you an example of an actual moral claim.
    I said your Dhamer claim was an example of one.
    My objection to you making the Dhamer claim is that it is not one that your position (here in thread) can make.
    I can see the confusion. There's two different "me"s here. There's the debater Mican who presented the moral claim and there's the hypothetical moral subjectivist Mican who "can't make a moral claim". So to avoid this confusion in the future, I, me, mican, will only be the debater. There is no hypothetical "me". The hypothetical moral subjectivist is now "Joe".

    So to continue:

    So you're saying Joe cannot make a moral claim, such as "Dahmer was immoral" since his statement creates no "obligation". Correct?


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Unless you want to use the EXACT same definition of "opinion", in which case using the word "moral" becomes repetitive and meaningless, then you must include the idea of duty/obligation to it. Morality deals with ought's, and ought's deal with obligations/duties.
    So unless you establish or at least assert a duty/obligation, then you are not speaking of a moral claim.
    If Joe the subjectivist says "Don't murder" he is asserting an obligation - an obligation to himself.

    If I understand your argument correctly, one is free to ignore Joe and therefore they are not bound to not murder just because Joe told them not to. Since Joe's assertion does not inherently make one bound to not murder Joe is not presenting an actual obligation (for an obligation is what one is bound to do).

    Have I got it right? If not, re-do my above statement and try to change it as little as possible - just as much as it takes to accurately relay what what you mean.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I am not using a strange version of "obligation". It is an action you are bound to do.
    But how does a moral claim create an obligation?

    I'll create another hypothetical guy - Sam. Sam is considering committing murder. Give me an example of someone (we'll call this guy "Dave") making a moral claim that will give Sam the obligation to not murder.
    Last edited by mican333; January 20th, 2013 at 09:46 PM.

  16. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  17. #295
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    Your point was addressed by MT.
    I think I missed it. We were discussion my scenarios and the specific point that God must be immoral if indeed killing children is an objectively immoral act.

  18. #296
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I can see the confusion. There's two different "me"s here. There's the debater Mican who presented the moral claim and there's the hypothetical moral subjectivist Mican who "can't make a moral claim". So to avoid this confusion in the future, I, me, mican, will only be the debater. There is no hypothetical "me". The hypothetical moral subjectivist is now "Joe".
    You are trying to torment me aren't you *J* I have a hard enough time keeping my own multiple personalities in check.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So you're saying Joe cannot make a moral claim, such as "Dahmer was immoral" since his statement creates no "obligation". Correct?
    Right, "Joe" can't make a moral claim regarding Dahmer if it is a fact that he creates no obligation for Dahmer or if he is not asserting an already existing obligation that Dahmer had.
    Worse, if Joe isn't trying to claim that Dahmer had an obligation, then he certainly can not make the claim coherently within his own view.

    It is to say, "I recognize that no obligation existed, but I THINK He was obligated to not act that way". Certainly I'm not asserting that the words can not be typed or spoken by the subjectivist, but it can not be considered coherent IMO.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If Joe the subjectivist says "Don't murder" he is asserting an obligation - an obligation to himself.

    If I understand your argument correctly, one is free to ignore Joe and therefore they are not bound to not murder just because Joe told them not to. Since Joe's assertion does not _____ make one bound to not murder Joe is not presenting an actual obligation (for an obligation is what one is bound to do).

    Have I got it right? If not, re-do my above statement and try to change it as little as possible - just as much as it takes to accurately relay what what you mean.
    (Your quote edited to reflect change)
    I think you have that right on. I would only change "inherently" by omitting it.

    -commentary-
    I say that because some have argued that joe's assertion does make another bound, I am simply waiting for support regarding that claim from them. Defining it as "inherent" would no doubt be called "coming from the objectiv POV".
    So I would rather leave it open to the possibility, with the burden on the one who claims the duty/obligation exists. As it stands, it certainly isn't apparent that one person obligates another through the magic of thought.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But how does a moral claim create an obligation?

    I'll create another hypothetical guy - Sam. Sam is considering committing murder. Give me an example of someone (we'll call this guy "Dave") making a moral claim that will give Sam the obligation to not murder.
    Isn't that the challenge the subjectivist/relativists faces? To give an example under subjective reasoning that one is obligated to do or not do X?

    When I said that very same thing, only regarding the man in a box example, I was told I could "decide for myself". Which hardly seemed an answer which was. "ough the man be in the box?".

    Personally, I don't think any such example can be given by the subjectivist position.
    To serve man.

  19. #297
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,707
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Right, "Joe" can't make a moral claim regarding Dahmer if it is a fact that he creates no obligation for Dahmer or if he is not asserting an already existing obligation that Dahmer had.
    But asserting an obligation and an actual obligation are two different things.

    Joe can assert that Sam has an obligation not to murder. Asserting it is just as simple as saying "I insist that you not murder". So in that situation Joe has asserted an obligation regardless of whether he has succeeded in actually creating an obligation.

    Let's skip the whole thing of talking about past moral actions. Referring to things in the past just adds the times-past element to it. Moral assertions are suppose to effect actions that one may or may not take.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I say that because some have argued that joe's assertion does make another bound, I am simply waiting for support regarding that claim from them. Defining it as "inherent" would no doubt be called "coming from the objectiv POV".
    So I would rather leave it open to the possibility, with the burden on the one who claims the duty/obligation exists.
    Actually, I would like a supported argument from you that a human being can create an obligation and therefore a moral claim.

    Or is it not your position that at least some humans can create moral claims?

    I mean if you want to agree that subjective moralists cannot make moral claims because human beings are incapable of making moral claims, I'll accept that position and we can proceed from there. But if you want to claim that subjective moralists are uniquely incapable of making moral claims that means that other people can make moral claims and that position needs to be supported before it can be accepted as "true" in this debate.
    Last edited by mican333; January 21st, 2013 at 03:25 PM.

  20. #298
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,475
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    My expanded explanation is still forthcoming...but this is where your position goes south. Both you and Sig display a gross ignorance about this concept when you say things like this. You both are guilty of equivocating. When we use the term "opinion" here, we do not mean merely "position" as is commonly used in the vernacular. We use the term as it is defined in philosophy, as it is defined by theories of knowledge, as it is defined in epistemology. This is a continuing problem, and one of the reasons I've slowed down in my discussions here. There are some here at ODN who are simply unaware (for whatever reason) of the proper philosophical usages of terms and concepts, and thus it requires exposing them to this knowledge...but more often than not, such people have no desire to further their own education or to progress...they are here only to argue, not to move forward.
    If indeed you use the term opinion in the "philosophical sense" (as if there was only one such definition among philosophers) and your meaning is that it is without any basis in reason or experience (setting aside intuition for the moment) then it merely means the things you label as being mere opinion are in fact mislabeled by you and are not opinion as you assert they are.

    If you have a specific definition for opinion you need to lay that out for us, then show that subjective morality satisfies all aspects of that definition, both in its inclusive and exclusive properties.

    What you can't do is just assume that everyone in the clubhouse is using the same definitions and intuitively understands all the connections you make. You have to lay it out there rather than just dismiss anyone who isn't on the same page as you are.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  21. Thanks BasicInstinct thanked for this post
  22. #299
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But asserting an obligation and an actual obligation are two different things.
    Yes, they are. Which one do you (err joe) intend to make?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Joe can assert that Sam has an obligation not to murder. Asserting it is just as simple as saying "I insist that you not murder". So in that situation Joe has asserted an obligation regardless of whether he has succeeded in actually creating an obligation.
    O.k. above question answered. Joe intends to make an assertion.
    Would you agree that assertions need support or they can be dismissed; like any other unsupported claim?
    Here on ODN if one continues to make a claim and refuses to support it, it is called "trolling".
    Is that what a moral relativists does in moral discussions? Trolls them with assertions they never intend to support or are incapable of supporting?

    Also, I have supported (IMO) a case that shows his assertion to be false regarding any event that he does not have involvement in. Not only simply absolutly false, but false according to his relativist standards. As it is false according to his standards, his "assertion" is not only false, but incoherent.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Let's skip the whole thing of talking about past moral actions. Referring to things in the past just adds the times-past element to it. Moral assertions are suppose to effect actions that one may or may not take.
    I'm afraid I can't. My point is to target the "effect" argument of the relativist. The BEST example of this is a past event which the relativist was not a part of. You are asking me to skip the best example possible to support my point. Certainly it makes sense to ask for such a handicap for one interested in winning more than truth, but you aren't that person..I'm guessing Joe isn't either.

    So if Joe is relying on his influence to create an obligation, then any "assertion" he makes is inherently false and disproven regarding events where it is demonstrated that he has no ability to influence.

    Further, "moral assertions" are made by moralists regarding past events. I assume Joe would say that the Nazis ought not to have gassed the Jews. I think I have shown how that assertion is inconsistent with Joe's subjective moral construct.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Actually, I would like a supported argument from you that a human being can create an obligation and therefore a moral claim.
    Why? Isn't Joe the one making a moral claims as a subjectivist? Tell Joe he can't shift the burden in a thread discussing the merits of his subjective morality.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Or is it not your position that at least some humans can create moral claims?
    My position is that God exists bla bla bla morality... don't you just want to skip back to the claim that God exists and have me support that in this thread?
    I hope that is a good enough example of how it isn't may position that is under scrutiny. For sake of argument I do not know if it is moral, and I'm not making any moral claim. I am making claims regarding Joe's moral structure.
    It seems reasonable for me to ask if the school shooter acted morally or if there is any condition under which his actions could be called moral. The brilliant challenges to absolute morality that you think of are fine to point out or mention here.. but irrelevant.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I mean if you want to agree that subjective moralists cannot make moral claims because human beings are incapable of making moral claims, I'll accept that position and we can proceed from there. But if you want to claim that subjective moralists are uniquely incapable of making moral claims that means that other people can make moral claims and that position needs to be supported before it can be accepted as "true" in this debate.
    I argue that the moral subjectivist can not make moral claims from the subjective position. I do so by saying that his moral claims contradict his subjective position, and can not be supported by it.
    Which I have been working to show regarding Joe's position. (I think fairly solidly)

    I do not claim that it is beyond humans ability to make a moral claim. That would be to say that Humans can not know moral truths or communicate them.
    To serve man.

  23. #300
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,707
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    O.k. above question answered. Joe intends to make an assertion.
    Would you agree that assertions need support or they can be dismissed; like any other unsupported claim?
    Sure. I'll even make some truisms (to be accepted as "true" for this debate) that support it.

    Truism - All claims and assertions that are based on opinion are impossible to support.

    Truism - All unsupported claims and assertions can be dismissed.

    Do you accept these truisms?


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So if Joe is relying on his influence to create an obligation, then any "assertion" he makes is inherently false and disproven regarding events where it is demonstrated that he has no ability to influence.
    But NO ONE has the ability to influence the past. So Joe's inability to effect the past has nothing to do with his subjectivist morality. It's more a problem with his inability to effect past events, a common human limitation.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I argue that the moral subjectivist can not make moral claims from the subjective position. I do so by saying that his moral claims contradict his subjective position, and can not be supported by it.
    Yeah, but so what?

    You have not supported that human beings can make moral claims at all and therefore it's possible that Joe's inability to make a moral claim is just one of the aspects of being human and therefore all that Joe's inability says about him, and all subjective moralists, is that they are human.

    I will concede that human subjectivists are human and therefore cannot do what humans cannot do.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I do not claim that it is beyond humans ability to make a moral claim.
    But you have not supported that it is not beyond a human's ability to make a moral claim and therefore we have to accept that it MAY be beyond human ability to make a moral claim.

    If you are going to claim that humans can make moral claims, I ask that you support or retract that claim.
    Last edited by mican333; January 23rd, 2013 at 08:57 AM.

 

 
Page 15 of 25 FirstFirst ... 5 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. God: Did God Commit Murder?
    By Tarja in forum Religion
    Replies: 84
    Last Post: November 6th, 2008, 04:09 PM
  2. Home school VS Public school
    By MindTrap028 in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: August 13th, 2006, 05:58 AM
  3. New Orleans cops commit suicide...
    By Slipnish in forum Current Events
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: September 7th, 2005, 05:40 AM
  4. Moral Murder?
    By Mr. Hyde in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 96
    Last Post: March 14th, 2005, 03:45 PM
  5. Nick Berg video shown to school children...IN school
    By Apokalupsis in forum Current Events
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: June 9th, 2004, 10:27 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •