Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Are you, by any chance, arguing that "terrorism is right and good" is - opposed to "ice cream is good" is not only a subjective but an objective statement?
Incorrect paraphrasing of my view.You believe moral values are personal beliefs made true to the subject by the belief of the subject.
Looking at reality: The courts of their respective societies.If you have 6 billion subjects running around, some saying rape is fun, genocide is good for the Third Reich, and children are so easy to kidnap and sell into sex slavery. Who adjudicates between all of these subjects?
If your question implies an unspoken "objectively": I agree (remember, I am a subjectivist who has yet to be shown objective morality to exist).No one can.
Do you agree?
Looking at reality: The courts of their respective societies.
So... basically committing genocide is like eating ice cream, some people like it, some don't. Is this what you're saying?
Again looking at reality: The victor.So two societies, Nazi Germany, and the U.S had two very different and opposing views regarding the "Final Solution" or the systematic slaughter of millions of Jews.
Who adjudicates between them?
Again looking at reality:
Now, please answer the counterquestion: Who adjucates between two very different and opposing views when one or both are believed to be objectively right by their holders?
Wait, I´ll answer it myself: The problem would be exactly the same.
The victor determines whether genocide is right or wrong? You like saying "looking at reality" as if whatever happens is what is supposed to happen.
So if the Nazis had won, then genocide would have been right?
Of course it would be the same FOR YOU. YOU ARE A MORAL SUBJECTIVIST. However, for me, it would be easy.
The Law of excluded middle says that they cannot both be right if they are contradictory views. If Nazi Germany thought that the holocaust was right and the US thought it was wrong, I would simply judge the two views according to which view coheres closest to human moral experience the same way ethical theorists test competing ethical hypotheses.
To any rational, humane, sane, individual, it is self-evident that killing 6 million Jews because they were Jews is wrong. The Nazis violated that objective moral duty to love their neighbors as themselves and the US and Britian fulfilled the law.
Case closed.
Again looking at reality: The victor.
Now, please answer the counterquestion: Who adjucates between two very different and opposing views when one or both are believed to be objectively right by their holders?
Wait, I´ll answer it myself: The problem would be exactly the same.
The problem we are facing: People disagree. Claiming your own view "objectively" right has never solved any disagreement. For that you would
1. be able to demonstrate that there is an objective morality.
2. be able to demonstrate that this objective morality actually says what you think it says.
I am not able to demonstrate this, and - as the fact that you haven´t even started to try to do this after hundreds of posts on the issue - tells me that you aren´t able to do it, either.
3. Even if we could demonstrate to them both points, people might still disagree and do what we don´t like them to do.
IOW: "This is wrong" and "this is objectively wrong" will both be received as your subjective opinion (and rightly so) - and as a means to solve the problem (people disagreeing in moral questions, people doing what we feel is wrong, people feeling that what we do is wrong) the second isn´t any more powerful than the first.
Case closed? You didn't even bother to address quatona's point!
To flesh it out a bit further, let's return to the earlier scenario of the Islamist apologist. You insist that your 'objective' morality is objective, and he insists that his 'objective' morality is objective. What now?
To any rational, humane, sane, individual, it is self-evident that killing 6 million Jews because they were Jews is wrong. The Nazis violated that objective moral duty to love their neighbors as themselves and the US and Britian fulfilled the law.
It is not self-evident to me that "killing 6 million Jews because they are Jews" is wrong. It is rather a conclusion I draw based on my best understanding of what I regard to be an objective standard of values.
It is also not self-evident to me that we have an objective moral duty to love our neighbors as ourselves. That is a popular belief that is promoted by Christianity, but there is nothing self-evident there.
eudaimonia,
Mark
So a rational, sane, humane, individual could justifiably say that it is not self-evident that killing 6 million Jews is wrong?
How could a rational, sane, humane individual say that?
It seems to me you are insinuating that the person would be justified in demanding some type of corroborative evidence. But would this demand not be an indicator of some type of moral impairment or deficiency? If we were to both walk outside, and a car was in your driveway and we walk up to it and I say: "hmm...I see an object in your driveway but I do not know if it is actually a car, can you prove to me that it is a car?"
Of course it is, for you would want to be treated the same way, even though you are an egoist...
You asked me: Who adjudicates. I answered your question.The victor determines whether genocide is right or wrong? You like saying "looking at reality" as if whatever happens is what is supposed to happen.
No, reality shows that they would have been the adjudicators.So if the Nazis had won, then genocide would have been right?
IOW in the attempt to establish your morality as objective you would appeals to your own judgement and add a bandwaggon fallacy.Of course it would be the same FOR YOU. YOU ARE A MORAL SUBJECTIVIST. However, for me, it would be easy.
The Law of excluded middle says that they cannot both be right if they are contradictory views. If Nazi Germany thought that the holocaust was right and the US thought it was wrong, I would simply judge the two views according to which view coheres closest to human moral experience the same way ethical theorists test competing ethical hypotheses.
It´s amazing how that prevented Nazi-Germany from happening, and it´s even more amazing how that prevented the Nazis from considering their ways objectively right, and arguing exactly like you do. No, wait, it didn´t.To any rational, humane, sane, individual, it is self-evident that killing 6 million Jews because they were Jews is wrong. The Nazis violated that objective moral duty to love their neighbors as themselves and the US and Britian fulfilled the law.
Case closed.
By rationally concluding that the issue is not self-evident.
Poor analogy. We don't "see" right and wrong. We infer right and wrong.
Your mind-reading skills need work.
eudaimonia,
Mark
Did Eudaimonia say he was an egoist? Somehow I'm not sure if we're understanding the term. It's not the same as egotist. You can be concerned with yourself but also have concern for others as it benefits you and them in some mutual sense. But our primary concern is self in one sense of the term.
No, reality shows that they would have been the adjudicators.
Don´t shoot me - I am just the observer.
Yes. Reality shows that it is not self-evident. A large portion of the German population back then participated and/or supported the genocide, and considered it right. So quite obviously the wrongness of the act isn´t self-evident.So a rational, sane, humane, individual could justifiably say that it is not self-evident that killing 6 million Jews is wrong?
Yes. Reality shows that it is not self-evident. A large portion of the German population back then participated and/or supported the genocide, and considered it right. So quite obviously the wrongness of the act isn´t self-evident.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?