If you purpose to do something then you want to do it, if you want to do it then you think it serves a good purpose. Even if you feel it to be bad in some way.
Upvote
0
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.
People intentionally do things all the time that they don't believe to be "good". Wanting something in the moment, feeling compelled to do something, complying with a directive, etc.. none of those things mean you believe that something to be "good"
It's nothing to do with being conflicted, about something after. There are plenty of people who don't feel guilty even while acknowledging they believe their actions are "bad".
If every human on earth agreed that something is wrong that wouldn't indicate that they aren't bias in their consideration so it could still be subjective. If the moral system depends on you personally valuing the rule that it is based on it's still subjective.I was thinking about a the idea that some things are held as wrong by all cultures as a starting point for an argument for objective morality.
Well it would seem to be the exact opposite.
I agreed that it's OBVIOUSLY wrong, but what about objectively wrong?
Why should we use something so horrifying and painful and despicable to prove that there is a moral code above our emotions?
People do this? I agree with you. I can't see the logic.Isn't using something like a person being raped the most disgusting and inconsiderate way to try to prove that morality can be objective?
How are you defining Objective morality? I have always understood objective as something based upon fact; something that can be demonstrated, like math. But how do you demonstrate morality? I think morality is subjective. Just because you cannot demonstrate that a moral behavior is bad doesn't make it any less bad. Rape doesn't become any less evil because some lexographer put it under the catagory of subjective morality rather than objective morality.Isn't using something like a person being raped the most disgusting and inconsiderate way to try to prove that morality can be objective?
Isn't it complete ignorance of why almost no one likes being raped? Sense it's completely obvious why most humans don't want someone to beat them up and force them to have sex with them why would this imply that there is a law above our emotions?
Why would they think most people not wanting to be raped proved the existence of a law higher than our emotions?
I wonder if men would try to argue this before women, since women actually fear rape a lot more than men do since men commonly do the raping.
What law are you talking about? Government laws?Why would they think most people not wanting to be raped proved the existence of a law higher than our emotions?
Objective morality basically means that you think morality is "written in the stars," so to speak, whether you think a deity or some other force makes the rules. These would be the "higher laws." Subjective morality, therefore, means that morality is constructed by humans and actions aren't actually good or bad any more than orange is factually an ugly color.How are you defining Objective morality? I have always understood objective as something based upon fact; something that can be demonstrated, like math. But how do you demonstrate morality?
I disagree with your definition of Subjective morality. If morality is constructed by humans thus actions weren't actually good or bad any more than orange is an ugly color, humans don't make laws about oranges being ugly; humans do make laws about morality.Objective morality basically means that you think morality is "written in the stars," so to speak, whether you think a deity or some other force makes the rules. These would be the "higher laws." Subjective morality, therefore, means that morality is constructed by humans and actions aren't actually good or bad any more than orange is factually an ugly color.
The very fact that rape is very common and done by many people demonstrates that quite a few people do not actually view rape as bad, so any argument that "everyone finds rape to be wrong" is simply not true and thus as conclusions drawn from it also are not.
I'm not sure what you're saying here or how it contradicts what I said. I was comparing the lack of objective truth, not the importance that our culture places on these examples relative to each other.I disagree with your definition of Subjective morality. If morality is constructed by humans thus actions weren't actually good or bad any more than orange is an ugly color, humans don't make laws about oranges being ugly; humans do make laws about morality.
Objective morality basically means that you think morality is "written in the stars," so to speak, whether you think a deity or some other force makes the rules. These would be the "higher laws." Subjective morality, therefore, means that morality is constructed by humans and actions aren't actually good or bad any more than orange is factually an ugly color.
Yes, it is.Sorry but this isn't right.
You're thinking of either moral objectivism or moral absolutism. Objective morality is a different term and is more like moral realism (link). The concepts are certainly related, but "objective morality" has more to do with the idea of a source for morality than the universality and applicability of moral truths (some more links).Objective morality is when a moral truth (the object), like murder (the unjustified taking of a human life) is wrong, is true for everyone at all times, whether they believe it or not.
This is pretty much what I said.Subjective morality is when that moral truth (murder is wrong) is only wrong for the person (the subject) who believes it.
Yes, it is.
You're thinking of either moral objectivism or moral absolutism. Objective morality is a different term and is more like moral realism (link). The concepts are certainly related, but "objective morality" has more to do with the idea of a source for morality than the universality and applicability of moral truths (some more links).
This is pretty much what I said.
How are you defining Objective morality? I have always understood objective as something based upon fact; something that can be demonstrated, like math. But how do you demonstrate morality? I think morality is subjective. Just because you cannot demonstrate that a moral behavior is bad doesn't make it any less bad. Rape doesn't become any less evil because some lexographer put it under the catagory of subjective morality rather than objective morality.
Ken
Just because you cannot demonstrate that a moral behavior is bad doesn't make it any less bad. Rape doesn't become any less evil because some lexographer put it under the catagory of subjective morality rather than objective morality.
But there isn't a way to tell what is bad or good objectively, you're using your bias to determine those things.
This is like saying the notion of reviewing media is meaningless as there is no objective standard.As living beings, that's always going to be the case. If you're talking about inanimate objects, then you could talk about objective morality as long as it doesn't involve living beings. In that case, there would be no such things as morality anymore since the idea would be meaningless.
This is like saying the notion of reviewing media is meaningless as there is no objective standard.
Yes, but the value of all art is subjective therefore viewing any opinion on any piece of media is therefore meaningless.
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?