Do you believe that an Objective(tangible and concrete) sense of morality exists? please include your reasoning.
Question 2.
If there is no objective form of morality and it is subjective(the product of opinions or personal preferences), then why should I abide by anyone elses moral code? Again please include your reasoning.
Do you believe that an Objective(tangible and concrete) sense of morality exists? please include your reasoning.
Question 2.
If there is no objective form of morality and it is subjective(the product of opinions or personal preferences), then why should I abide by anyone elses moral code? Again please include your reasoning.
You do not consider the inalienable rights of man a universal morality that applies to all people despite their background?
Usually an objective morality is based on societal standards of efficient behavior vs. inefficient behavior, and these standards may be distinguished in many different ways depending on what specifically they are contrasting.
Do you believe that an Objective(tangible and concrete) sense of morality exists? please include your reasoning.
Question 2.
If there is no objective form of morality and it is subjective(the product of opinions or personal preferences), then why should I abide by anyone elses moral code? Again please include your reasoning.
You do not consider the inalienable rights of man a universal morality that applies to all people despite their background? Please define a right. Isn’t it just a liberty that is allowed to be taken?
Usually an objective morality is based on societal standards of efficient behavior vs. inefficient behavior, and these standards may be distinguished in many different ways depending on what specifically they are contrasting. Actually societal standards would help to guide peoples moral compass but would not create one absolutely set in stone idea of morality, because each person interprets the social moral code differently. This difference in perception plus a difference in preference leads to subjective opinions of what morality is. So how does it follow that there can be an obligatory form of morality? Where is the objectivity in personal perception? Also because each person defines efficient behavior differently there would be very different conceptions of morality.
If there is no objective form of morality and it is subjective(the product of opinions or personal preferences), then why should I abide by anyone elses moral code?
You wouldn’t unless you either (A) happened to agree with it or (B) were forced to. That’s how the world already works, in fact - people do what they want, unless they’re forced to do otherwise.
"Please define a right. Isn’t it just a liberty that is allowed to be taken?"
You are unaware of the classical liberal conceptualization of the rights of man and the efficient political mechanism involved?
"Actually societal standards would help to guide peoples moral compass but would not create one absolutely set in stone idea of morality, because each person interprets the social moral code differently."
You asked if there was an objective morality, and examples were provided (examples you clearly were unable to conceptualize demonstrated by your response). What you are discussing here is subjective moral standards not any type of broad objective moral standards (as the examples demonstrated). Your argument is contradictory to your original statement, and therefore has no rational relevancy to the discussion.
"So how does it follow that there can be an obligatory form of morality?"
This was already demonstrated. Perhaps you should attempt to more efficiently discern the concepts before you respond in order to save yourself from intellectual embarrassment.
"Also because each person defines efficient behavior differently there would be very different conceptions of morality."
Uh no. Efficiency is not determined subjectively because there is no subjective premise, only an objective one (there is no moral imposition, or emotional imposition). Your claim has an irrational premise for this reason.
"Where is the objectivity in personal perception?"
Lmao...No one is disputing this. You must be really confused.
"47 minutes of mindless political babbling? How about I don’t waste my time and you summarize it for me."
Thank you for efficiently demonstrating your own intellectual laziness. Sayat demonstrates an objective premise derived out of societal standards, and then contrasts efficient behavior vs. inefficient behavior thereby creating objective rational validity for his claim.
Dude, if you are going to be intellectually lazy why even reply? You are only going to embarrass yourself further.
Regulus wrote: "Please define a right. Isn’t it just a liberty that is allowed to be taken?"
You are unaware of the classical liberal conceptualization of the rights of man and the efficient political mechanism involved? I am concerned with your definition of a human right. Not someone elses.
"Actually societal standards would help to guide peoples moral compass but would not create one absolutely set in stone idea of morality, because each person interprets the social moral code differently."
You asked if there was an objective morality, and examples were provided (examples you clearly were unable to conceptualize demonstrated by your response). What you are discussing here is subjective moral standards not any type of broad objective moral standards (as the examples demonstrated). Your argument is contradictory to your original statement, and therefore has no rational relevancy to the discussion. what I am pointing out is that there is no such thing as an objective morality, but apparently you are to slow to get that so here it is. No form of morality can possibly be objective because everyone’s understanding of morality is completely different. If you don’t believe me, then let me ask, if a woman is raped should she get an abortion? Now think about the multitude of answers people typically give for that question and it generally proves that morality is not a set in stone concept but instead it is a set of principles that are determined by the individual based on the circumstances they have witnessed or taken part in in their lives.
"So how does it follow that there can be an obligatory form of morality?"
This was already demonstrated. Perhaps you should attempt to more efficiently discern the concepts before you respond in order to save yourself from intellectual embarrassment. you did not demonstrate Objective morality. You only mentioned that society can have a strong collective influence on the moral compass of its people. This does not mean that those people all follow the same conception of morality just that their fellow citizens have influence on their decisions. Are you having trouble understanding the difference?
"Also because each person defines efficient behavior differently there would be very different conceptions of morality."
Uh no. Efficiency is not determined subjectively because there is no subjective premise, only an objective one (there is no moral imposition, or emotional imposition). Your claim has an irrational premise for this reason. You are correct to say that efficiency itself is objective, but how to achieve efficiency is a very subjective idea. To perform efficiently means that you get the most out of what you put in, but how to do that is opinion based. Do you understand now?
"Where is the objectivity in personal perception?"
Lmao...No one is disputing this. You must be really confused. You are failing to understand the full depth of control that personal perception has on day to day life, so I really think that you are the confused one.
"47 minutes of mindless political babbling? How about I don’t waste my time and you summarize it for me."
Thank you for efficiently demonstrating your own intellectual laziness. Sayat demonstrates an objective premise derived out of societal standards, and then contrasts efficient behavior vs. inefficient behavior thereby creating objective rational validity for his claim. Not sitting through partisan political babbling to get a few simple points you could have just named is not laziness, it is good time management. I work two jobs for a living and don’t have time to dedicate to mindless babbling that only makes a few points really valid to your argument.
That being said, I don’t think you understand what I mean by the term "Objective". What I mean is taht there are no personal opinions that can change the objective concept. Gravity is objective, rather or not you believe in it’s laws or how it works, the laws continue to apply and work in everyday life. The same absolutely cannot be said about morality. It changes from day to day month to month year to year and decade to decade. You know this is true and yet you still try to argue about it. Why? you say that objective moral standards are determined by the society of the individual, but then we would have hundreds and thousands of different moral codes which would indicate some amount of subjectivity in those societies otherwise they would all be the same. Then I could also point out that many people move in and out of various societies and ask what moral code they follow if not a subjective one? Cultural; norms do help to guide people to their idea of morality but ask a guy from Berkley California what he thinks about pot and then ask someone from Salt lake City Utah. I bet you get two different answers which are based in two different personal moral codes.
Accept it your argument that morality is objective has no valid reasoning behind it and that’s why you posted a youtube video about how Liberals are horrible.
Dude, if you are going to be intellectually lazy why even reply? You are only going to embarrass yourself further.I am not embarrassed, but I am laughing at your attempt to validate a set of universal codes of con duct that everyone should abide by. Your argument so far has been ridiculous at best
I Just watched about 18 and a half minutes of that mindless political blather, and can now conclusively tell you that he has very little if any understanding of what he calls the liberal mindset and no real conception of what most of the movies he is demeaning are actually about. He also does not understand that the reason that the story he is bitching about was on the front page of the New York times so many times is the same reason the O.J. Simpson trial went on for so long and was talked about so much. It sells newspapers and that is a dying industry, so they take what they can get to do a job and feed their families. You can’t get truth when news media is driven by ratings which are driven by how many people want to pick the news up and read it. Fix that problem and you will fix the media issue that Republicans whine about so often. Why haven’t any real conservative papers grown strong in this country at all? Liberal conspiracies? No it’s because nobody really wants to read the shit.
"I am concerned with your definition of a human right. Not someone elses."
An objective universal morality could never function efficiently on an individual level if that is what you are implying. The conception functions on a societal level. The inalienable rights of man are rights that apply to all people irrespective of background, and come from God. Why God? God is a political mechanism. If rights are a product of the generiosity of the state then they can be taken away by the state, whereas if rights come from God then the state has no right to take away such rights, only God does (this is an impossibility, and it is designed that way). This Jeffersonian mechanism also links liberty to religiosity in America, which is exceptional in history, because the two factions have at times been antithetical to one another. The separation of church and state creates incentives for religiosity as well because it is not inherently linked to the state. Such mechanisms create efficiency in innumeralbe spheres within a culture, and represent a broad universal morality based on objective efficiency.
"what I am pointing out is that there is no such thing as an objective morality, but apparently you are to slow to get that so here it is. No form of morality can possibly be objective because everyone’s understanding of morality is completely different. If you don’t believe me, then let me ask, if a woman is raped should she get an abortion? Now think about the multitude of answers people typically give for that question and it generally proves that morality is not a set in stone concept but instead it is a set of principles that are determined by the individual based on the circumstances they have witnessed or taken part in in their lives."
I understand your premise, but your premise does not relate to what would consist of a morality based on objective efficiency.
Efficiency can be measured, which is why it is objective. For instance, what is a more efficient behavior sexual abstinence or sexual promiscuity? There are many variables that can be measured that would demonstrate that abstinence is a more efficient behavior because STD risk factors are zero, chance of pregnancy is zero, the focus of behavior would not be directed toward sexual engagements and may be focused toward more productive behaviors. Another example would be two parent households. Two parent households statistically offer greater income (very few children in two parent households raise children in poverty), and the usually a two parent household is a more productive family environment within a community. Clearly the examples that have been used are ideals, and not practical for everyone, but the striving for them often produces more productive results than the abandonment of them.
"you did not demonstrate Objective morality. You only mentioned that society can have a strong collective influence on the moral compass of its people. This does not mean that those people all follow the same conception of morality just that their fellow citizens have influence on their decisions. Are you having trouble understanding the difference?"
I thought I distinctly stated previously that an objective morality cannot function efficiently on a micro level?
"You are correct to say that efficiency itself is objective, but how to achieve efficiency is a very subjective idea. To perform efficiently means that you get the most out of what you put in, but how to do that is opinion based. Do you understand now?"
Efficiency is something that is measured, otherwise something cannot be determined to be efficient or inefficient (despite what subjective beliefs may exist). There is no subjectivity involved. To claim otherwise would be to imply that things like mathematics, and science are subjective with a relativist premise.
"Not sitting through partisan political babbling to get a few simple points you could have just named is not laziness, it is good time management. I work two jobs for a living and don’t have time to dedicate to mindless babbling that only makes a few points really valid to your argument."
Good is a moral connotation. You cannot form a rational argument if you use moral connotations, or emotionally driven premises. It is quite brilliant commentary derived out of Dr. Allan Bloom’s book on the closing of the American mind.
"The same absolutely cannot be said about morality."
If it is premised on objective efficiency it most certainly can be, and this can be achieved on a macro level. I have elucided multiple examples of how this can function.
"you say that objective moral standards are determined by the society of the individual, but then we would have hundreds and thousands of different moral codes which would indicate some amount of subjectivity in those societies otherwise they would all be the same."
I have only ever claimed a macro application.
"Then I could also point out that many people move in and out of various societies and ask what moral code they follow if not a subjective one?"
The inalienable rights of man apply to all people irrespective of background, and that is a universal morality premised out of objective efficiency.
"Cultural; norms do help to guide people to their idea of morality but ask a guy from Berkley California what he thinks about pot and then ask someone from Salt lake City Utah. I bet you get two different answers which are based in two different personal moral codes."
Your examples have no rational relevancy to the discussion, because I have already conceded over and over that morality on a micro level can only be subjective.
"Accept it your argument that morality is objective has no valid reasoning behind it and that’s why you posted a youtube video about how Liberals are horrible."
Lmao...horrible? You crack me up! I think you are having difficulty conceptualizing the reasoning, because you are not distinguishing subjective premises from objective premises. Horrible is a moral connotation, which means it cannot function as a rational statement (the subjective premise negates this). Who taught you rhetoric?
lurch the bastard is either just trying to be diffucult or is just angry because he has a hard time understanding and catching onto simple concepts. Its not his fault his parents fucked up in raising him. The affects of bad parenting are almost incurable. The only thing we can do now is to keep people like him from breeding.
Do you believe that an Objective(tangible and concrete) sense of morality exists? please include your reasoning.
Question 2.
If there is no objective form of morality and it is subjective(the product of opinions or personal preferences), then why should I abide by anyone elses moral code? Again please include your reasoning.
I don’t think there’s a concrete objective moral code, insofar as we can write because morals can come into play in nearly every choice one makes.
But what about ethics? I think there are certainly objective ways to derive ethics, and that should be a part of everyone’s moral code- living and behaving ethically.
lurch the bastard is either just trying to be diffucult or is just angry because he has a hard time understanding and catching onto simple concepts. Its not his fault his parents fucked up in raising him. The affects of bad parenting are almost incurable. The only thing we can do now is to keep people like him from breeding.
lurch the bastard is either just trying to be diffucult or is just angry because he has a hard time understanding and catching onto simple concepts. Its not his fault his parents fucked up in raising him. The affects of bad parenting are almost incurable. The only thing we can do now is to keep people like him from breeding.
LOL!
Wow, you really got me there. Its funny how liberals love pointing out spelling and grammar mistakes, as if they’ve never done it themselves. They somehow think they have a masters in english. Well, here you go, ready?.............difficult. Happy? This just goes to show the lack of common sense on your part to realize the mistake was made because of a typing error. Try to use a little more of your brain before you make dumb pointless posts. Please tell me this isn’t what you do all day...lol.
Wow, you really got me there. Its funny how liberals love pointing out spelling and grammar mistakes, as if they’ve never done it themselves. They somehow think they have a masters in english. Well, here you go, ready?.............difficult. Happy? This just goes to show the lack of common sense on your part to realize the mistake was made because of a typing error. Try to use a little more of your brain before you make dumb pointless posts. Please tell me this isn’t what you do all day...lol.
Wow, you really got me there. Its funny how liberals love pointing out spelling and grammar mistakes, as if they’ve never done it themselves. They somehow think they have a masters in english. Well, here you go, ready?.............difficult. Happy? This just goes to show the lack of common sense on your part to realize the mistake was made because of a typing error. Try to use a little more of your brain before you make dumb pointless posts. Please tell me this isn’t what you do all day...lol.
You know what’s funny? I’m not a liberal.
Talk about your premature judgments.
Say what you want, you’re just mad that i called you out on something you did that was stupid. Get over it.
