Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Objective morality, can it exist? Sort of....
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Econ4every1" data-source="post: 75147488" data-attributes="member: 404044"><p>I used a chair as an example.</p><p></p><p>So here, let's put it this way, what is the value of water outside a conscience and sentient mind to value it?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Disagree, a tree<em> needs</em> water, but it does not <em>value</em> it, it is purely a biological function, that's not value. Value requires thought and consideration. You are confusing <em>value </em>with <em>need.</em></p><p></p><p>Are trees subjects or objects? The fact that they are alive does not make them, IMO subjects. Because then we need to ask the question, what properties does something have to have to be considered a subject and not an object?</p><p></p><p>But even if I concede you are correct for the sake of discussion, then remove all living organisms from the equation. Would value exist in a place without something to do the value?</p><p></p><p>Remember the point here is that objects do not place value on things, only subjects, so even if I concede that trees value water, my point still stands. If you think a tree is a subject, then the subject--->Object relationship I talked about is still in tact.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Ok, so we agree the choice to make an inch about this long:</p><p></p><p>|--------------| (this is an inch on my screen, it will depend on your resolution, but run with me here)</p><p></p><p>1) The choice to make it the length above was chosen subjectively, agree?</p><p></p><p>2) If I say I'm 73 inches tall (and I am), is that statement subjective or objective?</p><p></p><p>The answer, IMO, is in relation to the distance we call an inch is that it is objectively true as long as we are using the word inch to represent the standard we all know and accept.</p><p></p><p>If I said to you, "No, I have my own standard for what an inch is and it's this long": </p><p></p><p>|--------------------------------------------------------|</p><p></p><p>What would you say to that?</p><p></p><p>Hopefully, you'd correct me and point out that I can use whatever distance I want, but people won't recognize that as an inch.</p><p></p><p>Standards are social constructs that exist because of the shared utility they provide and the fact that people share the same ideas about what words mean, in this case, what is an "inch".</p><p></p><p>So while the decision on what to make the standard is subjective, within the context of that standard, the first measurement I gave abe is objectively one inch. Any other distance, and it's <em>not </em>an inch.</p><p></p><p>One more example. Let's say I'm asked to come and join a game of soccer. I say yes. The game starts and I pick up the ball with my hands and I run to the goal and throw it in. </p><p></p><p>Am I playing soccer? Objectively, soccer is a game where hands aren't used. If I say, well that's not how <em>I</em> play soccer, people would remind me that it doesn't matter how I define the rules, the rules are agreed upon and formalized beforehand, so whatever <em>I'm </em>playing isn't soccer.</p><p></p><p>Even though the rules are chosen subjectively, once the rules are in place there are objectively right and wrong ways to play. That's not to say BTW, that the rules can't be changed, but the process requires that people agree on the changes and from that point forward, everyone agrees to adhear to the new rule/s.</p><p></p><p>I hope that makes sense.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Econ4every1, post: 75147488, member: 404044"] I used a chair as an example. So here, let's put it this way, what is the value of water outside a conscience and sentient mind to value it? Disagree, a tree[I] needs[/I] water, but it does not [I]value[/I] it, it is purely a biological function, that's not value. Value requires thought and consideration. You are confusing [I]value [/I]with [I]need.[/I] Are trees subjects or objects? The fact that they are alive does not make them, IMO subjects. Because then we need to ask the question, what properties does something have to have to be considered a subject and not an object? But even if I concede you are correct for the sake of discussion, then remove all living organisms from the equation. Would value exist in a place without something to do the value? Remember the point here is that objects do not place value on things, only subjects, so even if I concede that trees value water, my point still stands. If you think a tree is a subject, then the subject--->Object relationship I talked about is still in tact. Ok, so we agree the choice to make an inch about this long: |--------------| (this is an inch on my screen, it will depend on your resolution, but run with me here) 1) The choice to make it the length above was chosen subjectively, agree? 2) If I say I'm 73 inches tall (and I am), is that statement subjective or objective? The answer, IMO, is in relation to the distance we call an inch is that it is objectively true as long as we are using the word inch to represent the standard we all know and accept. If I said to you, "No, I have my own standard for what an inch is and it's this long": |--------------------------------------------------------| What would you say to that? Hopefully, you'd correct me and point out that I can use whatever distance I want, but people won't recognize that as an inch. Standards are social constructs that exist because of the shared utility they provide and the fact that people share the same ideas about what words mean, in this case, what is an "inch". So while the decision on what to make the standard is subjective, within the context of that standard, the first measurement I gave abe is objectively one inch. Any other distance, and it's [I]not [/I]an inch. One more example. Let's say I'm asked to come and join a game of soccer. I say yes. The game starts and I pick up the ball with my hands and I run to the goal and throw it in. Am I playing soccer? Objectively, soccer is a game where hands aren't used. If I say, well that's not how [I]I[/I] play soccer, people would remind me that it doesn't matter how I define the rules, the rules are agreed upon and formalized beforehand, so whatever [I]I'm [/I]playing isn't soccer. Even though the rules are chosen subjectively, once the rules are in place there are objectively right and wrong ways to play. That's not to say BTW, that the rules can't be changed, but the process requires that people agree on the changes and from that point forward, everyone agrees to adhear to the new rule/s. I hope that makes sense. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Objective morality, can it exist? Sort of....
Top
Bottom