NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you think there is an objective truth about how something SHOULD be / how peolpe should act (not about how sth is or how it seems to be)?
And if you don't think there is, do you think one has the right do punish s.o. who committed a crime? (One could say he just got different thoughts on what is right/wrong, so why should one punish him?

Dont want to say something to it?

It comes down to me being hurt/inconvenienced/etc. If that occurs, yes, I want to make someone pay for doing it. Usually, people get a chance for most issues (accidental insults and such). If they do it again, I yell.

But there are some things (burglary, robbery, violent crime) that I wouldn't give a second thought about shooting first.

I'm very surprised at the poll results.

Hey folks, check it out! 81% of the people who've answered so far probably think it's OK to rape, murder, and steal! Hooray!

Seriously folks, this is fucking stupid. To claim that there is no moral objective implies that there is no one thing that is bad no matter when you do it or who you do it to. A lack of a moral objective means that a standard for decency doesn't exist. I'd like to ask everyone that's voted "No" to take a minute to think about this.

I'm very surprised at the poll results.

Hey folks, check it out! 81% of the people who've answered so far probably think it's OK to rape, murder, and steal! Hooray!

Seriously folks, this is fucking stupid. To claim that there is no moral objective implies that there is no one thing that is bad no matter when you do it or who you do it to. A lack of a moral objective means that a standard for decency doesn't exist. I'd like to ask everyone that's voted "No" to take a minute to think about this.
everybodys definition of "right" and "wrong" is different

some people say homosexuality is wrong some say its not, some people say abortion is wrong some say its not.

etc

etc.

no (to Fourth post), to say there is no moral objective is to say that every situation cannot be judged from the same point of view. This is usually because situations tend to differ.

It isn't implied that murder and rape are OK, but for example, I would call some acts of self defence murder, because the aggressor is intentionally killed by the defender (and this I do not regard as legal). Some people would not, even if the aggressor is violently killed by the defender. They'll argue that self defence rises above murder and that murder is OK in self defence.

How then, are you supposed to be objective?

I think that our genes are wired to give us some sense of ethics. We probably evolved that way so we could function better in a group.

Seriously folks, this is fucking stupid. To claim that there is no moral objective implies that there is no one thing that is bad no matter when you do it or who you do it to. A lack of a moral objective means that a standard for decency doesn't exist. I'd like to ask everyone that's voted "No" to take a minute to think about this.

Okay then, where does this objective morality reside in the cosmos?

I'm very surprised at the poll results.

Hey folks, check it out! 81% of the people who've answered so far probably think it's OK to rape, murder, and steal! Hooray!

Seriously folks, this is fucking stupid. To claim that there is no moral objective implies that there is no one thing that is bad no matter when you do it or who you do it to. A lack of a moral objective means that a standard for decency doesn't exist. I'd like to ask everyone that's voted "No" to take a minute to think about this.

Yes but if someone threatened to destroy the entire planet unless you raped, murdered and stole, would it be worth it?
There really isn’t much that you can say is unconditionally bad.

Do you think there is an objective truth about how something SHOULD be / how peolpe should act (not about how sth is or how it seems to be)?
And if you don't think there is, do you think one has the right do punish s.o. who committed a crime? (One could say he just got different thoughts on what is right/wrong, so why should one punish him?
In any society there are socially accepted norms. Violating these norms will almost always have negative consequences. This is one reason democracy is the most workable form of government and why people in democracies will usually make reference to laws, which are societal norms in codified form.

I'm very surprised at the poll results.

Hey folks, check it out! 81% of the people who've answered so far probably think it's OK to rape, murder, and steal! Hooray!

Seriously folks, this is fucking stupid. To claim that there is no moral objective implies that there is no one thing that is bad no matter when you do it or who you do it to. A lack of a moral objective means that a standard for decency doesn't exist. I'd like to ask everyone that's voted "No" to take a minute to think about this.
No we did not some of us were saying moral truth is more subjective then objective

We were not condoning murder or rape just relizing the fact that to be objectivly true everyone would have to believe in the same thing and they dont

We were not condoning murder or rape just relizing the fact that to be objectivly true everyone would have to believe in the same thing and they dont

No: the existence of an objective standard is unaffected by whether people believe in it or not.

Edit: uurh... that is after all what makes it objective.

I'm very surprised at the poll results.

Hey folks, check it out! 81% of the people who've answered so far probably think it's OK to rape, murder, and steal! Hooray!

Seriously folks, this is fucking stupid. To claim that there is no moral objective implies that there is no one thing that is bad no matter when you do it or who you do it to. A lack of a moral objective means that a standard for decency doesn't exist. I'd like to ask everyone that's voted "No" to take a minute to think about this.
where does this universal notion of absolute right and wrong come from? sure its wrong to "murder" (since murder is a legal definition of a type of illegal killing of a human being) but every country has at least a slightly different definition of what constitutes murder. so whose is most right?

its wrong to rape, murder and steal within the definitions of your society but there are places where what gets you tossed in jail for the rest of your life here is perfectly acceptable there. so where is the objective morality?

i say that since it is all defined by society, there is no objective truth of what is right and what is wrong.

No: the existence of an objective standard is unaffected by whether people believe in it or not.
True but morals themselfs are beliefs so can beliefs ever be concidered a truth at all?

Do you think there is an objective truth about how something SHOULD be / how peolpe should act (not about how sth is or how it seems to be)?
And if you don't think there is, do you think one has the right do punish s.o. who committed a crime? (One could say he just got different thoughts on what is right/wrong, so why should one punish him?
Everything --absolutely everything --can be viewed either objectively (abstracted) or subjectively (experientially) by the individual, at the same time.

Your question seems to imply, though, the idea of a force "out there" determining moral choices and behaviours, so I chose "no" as a survey answer.

What is "sth"?

Everyone has the right to be punished, so they can learn and grow. And everyone has the right to restitution if they are harmed by an s.o. (significant other?). An independent ephemeral moral authority has nothing to do with that.

It isn't implied that murder and rape are OK,

I would say that if there are no objetive moral standards, it would be inappropriate to say that something IS not ok.
But this does not mean you cant CONSIDER something wrong (which -at least I hope so- most people do in case of murder ect.).
And if the majority considers something wrong, why shouldnt they try to prevent it and punish s.o. for doing so?
I guess that is just what we do: Nearly all people agree that e.g. murder is wrong and therefore agree that there should be laws preventing it / punishing s.o. for it.

Oh please. If you want to go around and stick crazy stipulations onto any situation, you can turn anything around. you can say that you've never hurt anyone, but then there's the old "what if someone's holding a gun to your head?" query and all of a sudden things start to change.

Asking whether or not there's a moral objective probably assumes there's nothing wierd going on like someone threatening to destroy the world or some manner of crazyness like that.

There are certain hings that are wrong no matter where you go. Any civilization will have strong negative reactions to three things: murder, theft, and incest. This means that at a very basic level we're all programmed to hold similar standards, at least to some degree.

And asking me where objective morality stands in the cosmos is like asking me how many Orange Julius stands there are in the Pacific ocean. You can take anything out of its element, that doesn't prove anything.

I would say that the only thing we could definitively value would be the human experience and existence. So I guess I would say that any action that infringes on the experience or existence on another person would be immoral.

True but morals themselfs are beliefs so can beliefs ever be concidered a truth at all?

It depends upon your prefered epistemological system: classically if they are true, justified beliefs, then they can be counted as knowledge. The deeper question here is whether the beliefs actually reflect something real in the world outside.

Oh please. If you want to go around and stick crazy stipulations onto any situation, you can turn anything around. you can say that you've never hurt anyone, but then there's the old "what if someone's holding a gun to your head?" query and all of a sudden things start to change.

Asking whether or not there's a moral objective probably assumes there's nothing wierd going on like someone threatening to destroy the world or some manner of crazyness like that.

There are certain hings that are wrong no matter where you go. Any civilization will have strong negative reactions to three things: murder, theft, and incest. This means that at a very basic level we're all programmed to hold similar standards, at least to some degree.

And asking me where objective morality stands in the cosmos is like asking me how many Orange Julius stands there are in the Pacific ocean. You can take anything out of its element, that doesn't prove anything.


They are statisticaly prominant ... does not make them an absolute

What is "sth"?


something

And asking me where objective morality stands in the cosmos is like asking me how many Orange Julius stands there are in the Pacific ocean. You can take anything out of its element, that doesn't prove anything.

No: the intention was to find out what metaphysical underpinnings you believed to support this objective morality. To make it a more straightforward question: where does objective morality come from?

There are certain hings that are wrong no matter where you go. Any civilization will have strong negative reactions to three things: murder, theft, and incest. This means that at a very basic level we're all programmed to hold similar standards, at least to some degree..

I totally disagree with this statement. There have been societies in the past and present that have absolutely no reservations about murder, theft, or incest as long as it furthered their own morality.

I totally disagree with this statement. There have been societies in the past and present that have absolutely no reservations about murder, theft, or incest as long as it furthered their own morality.

Example.

Example.

Ancient Egypt under Pharonic rule had incest as an accepted part of continuing and consolidating the power of the ruling elite.

The Aztec civilization enshrined human sacrifice in its religion (true, this is a case of killing, not murder as it wasn't against the law, but asking about killing seems to be a more relevant topic here).

Similarly, we can probably use Stalinist style communism as an example of a society in which theft (ie. collectivisation) is perfectly acceptable, but once again we run into the same killing/murder problem, as theft suggests that a law is being broken.

So, there you have examples of societies which condoned and encouraged the activities of incest, killing other humans during peace time, and appropriation of goods from others.

Ancient Egypt under Pharonic rule had incest as an accepted part of continuing and consolidating the power of the ruling elite.

The Aztec civilization enshrined human sacrifice in its religion (true, this is a case of killing, not murder as it wasn't against the law, but asking about killing seems to be a more relevant topic here).

I suppose I can believe that. But when you're talking about Egypt and the Aztecs you need to realize that you're getting into religion, and its my belief that religion strips us of many of the things that make us whole in the first place.

I totally disagree with this statement. There have been societies in the past and present that have absolutely no reservations about murder, theft, or incest as long as it furthered their own morality.
Incest yes

Murder by deffinition are ILLIGAL killing (so it would be more correct that some socities do condone KILLING) in that case yes look at the death penalty

Theft likewise is illigal appropreation ... but appropreation has been legal in the past

And incest ... bodies covered that one

I suppose I can believe that. Any rule has exceptions.

So, are you thus claiming that Ancient Egypt under Pharonic rule was an objectively wrong society?

There are certain hings that are wrong no matter where you go. Any civilization will have strong negative reactions to three things: murder, theft, and incest. This means that at a very basic level we're all programmed to hold similar standards, at least to some degree.


Yes of course any civilisation imposes sanctions on such behavior, because (nearly) everyone somehow is programmed to have moral standards.
But was the world a disc just because everyone thought so?
And another thought on that: Do we not primarily behave morally, because we are educated to do so?

Incest yes

Murder by deffinition are ILLIGAL killing (so it would be more correct that some socities do condone KILLING) in that case yes look at the death penalty

Theft likewise is illigal appropreation ... but appropreation has been legal in the past

And incest ... bodies covered that one

I realized the problem of definitions directly after I posted.

While you can say that murder and theft will always be negative to a society, it is impossible to come to a absolute moral conclusion as to what constitutes murder or theft. I, for example, consider the death penalty to be murder and abortion to not be murder, while someone else very reasonably could see it the other way around. I also believe that wealth redistribution is theft, someone else may see it the other way around.

So, are you thus claiming that Ancient Egypt under Pharonic rule was an objectively wrong society?

I posted an edit. Religion is capable of changing its moral code to whatever its leaders want it to be, regardless of the existence or non-existence of a moral absolute.

And yes, I'm saying it was an objectively wrong society.

I posted an edit. Religion is capable of changing its moral code to whatever its leaders want it to be, regardless of the existence or non-existence of a moral absolute.

And yes, I'm saying it was an objectively wrong society.
And what defines your objective truth? if we are going my statisticaly significant a whole society of that type that held thoes morals would throw things off

And how is incest objectively wrong?

And yes, I'm saying it was an objectively wrong society.

And this is just on the basis that it is an exception to the commonly held view of morality, or do you have some other reason to believe that incest is in itself objectively wrong?

And what defines your objective truth? if we are going my statisticaly significant a whole society of that type that held thoes morals would throw things off

Glad you asked. Not sure I understand exactly what's being said in the second sentance, I can oblige you with an answer. It's wrong to harm the physical being or circumstance of another person or another group of people for either personal gain or just for the hell of it. Civilizations built with this premise in mind have almost invariably lasted longer than those that haven't; the Egyptians probably had the best run in this regard. Any time you try to build a society around oppression and the supression of ideas or thought, you hit a big brick wall, and fast. I believe we all have the same basic rights but I'm not about to justify military action against other people to impose this will.

Granted everything falls away eventually no matter what you believe, but that's just entropy.

Originally posted by Melkor Unchained
Hey folks, check it out! 81% of the people who've answered so far probably think it's OK to rape, murder, and steal! Hooray!
No, I don't think they do. However, I only think that people would vote that way because they do not like the idea of the word "objective."

Originally posted by Nadkor
everybodys definition of "right" and "wrong" is different

some people say homosexuality is wrong some say its not, some people say abortion is wrong some say its not.
That is not quite the issue. I can say this because I agree with you, yet believe that there is objective truth.

The question asked if there was objective truth. The answer, I think, is yes. This does not always mean that everything is dictated by it. If I want a Coke instead of a Pepsi, it is not a matter of absolute moral truth.

To say that there is no absolute moral truth, under any circumstances, would be to imply that there is no right or wrong. If there is no right or wrong, then there is no justification for prisons or punishment of any sort, for that matter.

Whether there is absolute truth about the subjects you mentioned is a thick subject. I believe there is absolute truth to those. That does not mean I claim to know the entire conclusion of what they are.

In fact, if you group the moral and amoral categories into "acceptable," then you must use the logical Law of Excluded Middle. Something either is or it is not.

Originally posted by Fallanour
no (to Fourth post), to say there is no moral objective is to say that every situation cannot be judged from the same point of view. This is usually because situations tend to differ.
Not quite. I highlighted the part I thought was misconstrued. To say that there is no moral objective is to say that not one single can be judged from the same point of view. I just say this because I agree with you in that not everything is objective. However, I believe that some things (murder, rape, abuse, etc.) are morally wrong. Thus, I believe in a moral absolute, just not about everything.

It isn't implied that murder and rape are OK, but for example, I would call some acts of self defence murder, because the aggressor is intentionally killed by the defender (and this I do not regard as legal).
This is certainly not a popular view, at least in the U. S. I share it, though. ;)

Some people would not, even if the aggressor is violently killed by the defender. They'll argue that self defence rises above murder and that murder is OK in self defence.
I would assert that there may very well be a moral absolute in this instance. I just do not claim to know what it is. That is what the pursuit of truth is about.

How then, are you supposed to be objective?
There are instances when, I believe, there must be mercy shown in an instance where something absolutely wrong seemed like the least of all evils, such as abortion in the case that the mother will die if she carries the pregnancy to fruition. Either way, someone dies. I cannot fault her for that, even if I do think abortion is wrong.

Originally posted by Bodies Without Organs
Okay then, where does this objective morality reside in the cosmos?
Were you looking to open another can of worms before we finished this one? Take DCR's explanation, for now, because at least it leaves out the Creator/Big Bang argument. Let's discuss one to completion before we begin another, capice? ;)

Originally posted by Artamazia
Yes but if someone threatened to destroy the entire planet unless you raped, murdered and stole, would it be worth it?
Would it be worth it? Yes. Does that mean it is 'right?' Eh, I don't think so. Choosing the least of all evils is not something I think should make the action right. What is morally right and what is best do not always have to be the same.

There really isn’t much that you can say is unconditionally bad.
I think there is, but I agree that what is wrong is not always avoidable, so I am not so condemning of such things if they are actually in the context of such a situation.

And how is incest objectively wrong?

I didn't say it was. My incest example was... well... an example.

I'm very surprised at the poll results.

Hey folks, check it out! 81% of the people who've answered so far probably think it's OK to rape, murder, and steal! Hooray!

Seriously folks, this is fucking stupid. To claim that there is no moral objective implies that there is no one thing that is bad no matter when you do it or who you do it to. A lack of a moral objective means that a standard for decency doesn't exist. I'd like to ask everyone that's voted "No" to take a minute to think about this.

Agreed. Here's their chance: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=413923

It'd be interesting to coalate the responses....

Glad you asked. Not sure I understand exactly what's being said in the second sentance, I can oblige you with an answer. It's wrong to harm the physical being or circumstance of another person or another group of people for either personal gain or just for the hell of it. Civilizations built with this premise in mind have almost invariably lasted longer than those that haven't; the Egyptians probably had the best run in this regard. Any time you try to build a society around oppression and the supression of ideas or thought, you hit a big brick wall, and fast. I believe we all have the same basic rights but I'm not about to justify military action against other people to impose this will.

Granted everything falls away eventually no matter what you believe, but that's just entropy.
Just because adopting thoes set of morals has advantages to societies does not make them objective truths ... it just makes them advantagous idea's

>.<

It's not just an "advantagous idea," it's the way the universe works. People who do bad things to other people usually have bad things happen to them as a result.

>.<

It's not just an "advantagous idea," it's the way the universe works. People who do bad things to other people usually have bad things happen to them as a result.
Yes usualy but just becaus adopting a set of morals is good for survival does not make them TRUTH it just makes them a good idea

All experience is subjective, and judgments based on it will also be subjective. The only objective truths, if there are such a thing, will be about "objects". Things "out there in the universe". You can try to make values "objective" all you like, but it can't be done, it's just an illusion. You are sort of bumping up against the mind-body problem that has plagued philosophers for thousands of years.

The problem with relative morality is that it leads to a contradiction. Let us assume that relative morality is the case for the argument.

Given that everything is morally relative, I have no basis for saying that someone else (or another culture, etc) should subscribe to my morality. So I can't push my morality onto someone else. But isn't that an objective statement? It's a truth that is supposed to be outside of me. Relative morality leads to a condradiction.

The problem with relative morality is that it leads to a contradiction. Let us assume that relative morality is the case for the argument.

Given that everything is morally relative, I have no basis for saying that someone else (or another culture, etc) should subscribe to my morality. So I can't push my morality onto someone else. But isn't that an objective statement? It's a truth that is supposed to be outside of me. Relative morality leads to a condradiction.
I am not saying there are not benificial morality nor a consensus of morality ... just that there is no ABSOLUTE

>.<

It's not just an "advantagous idea," it's the way the universe works. People who do bad things to other people usually have bad things happen to them as a result.

This may be true within human societies, in that we have sets of rules and norms and we have a tendency to punish those who flaut them, but if it held true within the universe as a whole,. then wouldn't we see the universe itself acting so as to cause these bad things? - sleep with your sister... get hit by lightning, kill another person... be struck down by a meteorite, and so on.

Your claim that bad acts to others lead to bad acts upon the self doesn't hold any more water when it comes to claims of an objective morality than pointing out that some people do good things, but then have bad things happen to them.

It's not just an "advantagous idea," it's the way the universe works. People who do bad things to other people usually have bad things happen to them as a result.
It's "the way the universe works" until people decide it is no longer the way the universe works and change their minds/morality.

It's "the way the universe works" until people decide it is no longer the way the universe works and change their minds/morality.
Exactly (glad you are here ... I understand but not as good at arguing abstracts as you :D)

Exactly (glad you are here ... I understand but not as good at arguing abstracts as you :D)
Me either, but if we just sit in the corner and watch, nothing will ever get accomplished.

Me either, but if we just sit in the corner and watch, nothing will ever get accomplished.
Yup ... want to start arguing about what the oposite of not reality is again :p

Yup ... want to start arguing about what the oposite of not reality is again :p
Nah.

Nah.
Really?

No: the existence of an objective standard is unaffected by whether people believe in it or not.

Edit: uurh... that is after all what makes it objective.

Lol. Excellent point. It's refreshing when people truly understand the language.

It's "the way the universe works" until people decide it is no longer the way the universe works and change their minds/morality.

Uh.. sorry, I'm not buying that. Someone might think 2+2 is 5, that doesn't make it right either. The tenets of personal protection and advancement that I invoke in my definition of a 'moral objective' are good ideas, like you said, but they're not simply that. They're good ideas because they're right.

Ultimately the absence of a moral objective would mean that humanity has no framework from which to fashion its etics and the way it interacts with others. If this were the case, we would see a much more varied moral paradigm than even now. Sure, there's a lot of religions out there for example, but the majority of them have the same central tenets: Love your fellow man, don't kill people, etc etc. If a moral objective did not exist there would be little in common with the current prevailing ideologies.

I am not saying there are not benificial morality nor a consensus of morality ... just that there is no ABSOLUTE

Concensus or lack thereof doesn't prove anything. What I am saying is that allowing for more than one morality while saying that we can't push our morality on others is contradictory.

Uh.. sorry, I'm not buying that. Someone might think 2+2 is 5, that doesn't make it right either. The tenets of personal protection and advancement that I invoke in my definition of a 'moral objective' are good ideas, like you said, but they're not simply that. They're good ideas because they're right.

Ultimately the absence of a moral objective would mean that humanity has no framework from which to fashion its etics and the way it interacts with others. If this were the case, we would see a much more varied moral paradigm than even now. Sure, there's a lot of religions out there for example, but the majority of them have the same central tenets: Love your fellow man, don't kill people, etc etc. If a moral objective did not exist there would be little in common with the current prevailing ideologies.
Not nessisarily maybe the most advantagous is adopted
IT does not make them objectivly or absolutly right by all standards but it does make them widly accepted

We are not saying all morals are good for society just rather their is only really advantagous and non advantagous morals and humans tend (statisticaly) to work their way around to abiding by the former

Just because there is benifit does not make it absolute nor objectivly true

Concensus or lack thereof doesn't prove anything. What I am saying is that allowing for more than one morality while saying that we can't push our morality on others is contradictory.
Where did I say that?
And I have been arguing the same damn thing consensus does not make a moral absolute nor does it make it objectivly true

Where did I say that?
And I have been arguing the same damn thing consensus does not make a moral absolute nor does it make it objectivly true

Okay. No problem.

What I would be willing to argue is that objective morality and relative morality both lead to either a contradiction or to nihilism. Nihilism is a consistant system, but it is impossible to live up to, plus it seems to run counter to nearly every intuition that we have.

That leaves absolute morality as the only other viable option.

Not nessisarily maybe the most advantagous is adopted
IT does not make them objectivly or absolutly right by all standards but it does make them widly accepted

We are not saying all morals are good for society just rather their is only really advantagous and non advantagous morals and humans tend (statisticaly) to work their way around to abiding by the former

Just because there is benifit does not make it absolute nor objectivly true

Maybe something's just not clicking here [its late and I'm tired] but that made almost no sense to me. I'm bad with abstract things like this sometimes.