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
Where does morality come from?
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="stevevw" data-source="post: 74977760" data-attributes="member: 342064"><p>Morality is about the intention to do wrong and the programmer when designing a program has no intention to kill anyone. In fact, the programmer programs the car so that it saves lives. Therefore their intention is to save lives. No moral wrong has been committed.</p><p> Then if someone cuts your brakes and you end up swerving to miss a pedestrian because you find there are no brakes and kill someone doesn't the fault for that incident lies with the person who cut the brakes.</p><p></p><p> Well, you need to explain things better because I am just seeing things as they are. What if the pedestrian ran out in front of the car on purpose in a way that ensured he was hit and the driver didn't even have time to do anything.</p><p></p><p> No I'm not moving the goalposts I just misunderstood what you said when you said: "I can have an objective viewpoint that morality is subjective". Because that implies that you truly know that all morality is subjective. You didn't clarify that you were only talking about your view being objective about your subjective morality.</p><p></p><p> But that was not my claim. Once again I claimed that objective morality exists. That is different from saying it exists in all situations. Therefore to show that objective morality exists I only need to show it exists once.</p><p></p><p> Lived experience is how people live, how they act/react in situations. That is objective. How you behave in a given situation is an objective observation. Scientists can observe how something happens and behaves and can draw conclusions from this. If someone says I never get angry but then acts/reacts/behaves angrily then we have objective evidence they do behave angrily. We observe the behavior of someone to determine mental illness.</p><p></p><p>So if someone says I my view it is OK for someone to steal something to make their life better but then reacts against someone who steals from them we can see that they acted contradictory to their view and really believe it is wrong to steal from others. So we can observe people's moral positions in the way they act/react. People act/react as though morality is objective IE that certain things are always wrong. That is the lived experience we can be justified in believing that there is objective morality.</p><p></p><p> Once again I never said that. I said if I wanted to show there was such a thing as mental illness then I only have to show one case of mental illness.</p><p></p><p> No, I am saying when you say <span style="color: #00b3b3"><em>There are things that I believe are morally wrong and I could never support. But that doesn't mean that they are objectively wrong.</em></span></p><p></p><p>I am saying that your subjective moral position forbids you from ever saying to anyone that certain moral acts are definitely always wrong no matter what their subjective opinion. That seems counterproductive and going against intuition. Otherwise, if you condemn the act as always evil to the other person you are being objective. </p><p></p><p> I wasn't trying to make that connection. I agree that it doesn't show that the moral objective is true. I am more so appealing to a persons intuition and sense of right and wrong. I am asking why people don't acknowledge that certain evil acts are always wrong regardless of how people justify them under subjective morality. It seems a subjective position forbids them from ever admitting this.</p><p></p><p> That's not the point. It is about human agency. being a human and at least trying all those things. In that way rather than being restricted to try these things in the trolley problem, we are like a robot programmed not to be a human. The point is even if we try and fail we are reducing our intentions about killing. We are showing that we car and respect life and that diminishes our moral culpability.</p><p></p><p> I think this is beginning to become a cop-out. Sometimes it is because everyone believes it is always wrong to do something that makes it objectively wrong and they don't have to believe in God to think that. There are a lot of non-religious people who think certain things are always wrong and therefore objectively wrong. They view people who think that things like sexually abusing a kid as ok and can never be seen as always wrong as sick and deranged.</p><p></p><p>Like I said I think some under subjective morality is forced or programmed to stick to the mantra that something can never be said to be objectively wrong because that will undermine the subjectivist's position. even if that means denying it against all odds and their intuition.</p><p></p><p> Then you don't understand logical arguments. Are you telling me you cannot see the difference between the following positions?</p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>Positive claim. </strong>Steve says that there is such a thing as objective morality. Therefore Steve only has to show one example to show that there is objective morality.</p><p><strong>Negative claim. </strong>Kylie claims there is no objective morality. Kylie cannot prove this by just showing one example as there may be another situation with objective morality. So she has to show every single moral situation to show that there is no objective morality to prove her claim.</p><p></p><p>Not double standards but two completely different claims.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="stevevw, post: 74977760, member: 342064"] Morality is about the intention to do wrong and the programmer when designing a program has no intention to kill anyone. In fact, the programmer programs the car so that it saves lives. Therefore their intention is to save lives. No moral wrong has been committed. Then if someone cuts your brakes and you end up swerving to miss a pedestrian because you find there are no brakes and kill someone doesn't the fault for that incident lies with the person who cut the brakes. Well, you need to explain things better because I am just seeing things as they are. What if the pedestrian ran out in front of the car on purpose in a way that ensured he was hit and the driver didn't even have time to do anything. No I'm not moving the goalposts I just misunderstood what you said when you said: "I can have an objective viewpoint that morality is subjective". Because that implies that you truly know that all morality is subjective. You didn't clarify that you were only talking about your view being objective about your subjective morality. But that was not my claim. Once again I claimed that objective morality exists. That is different from saying it exists in all situations. Therefore to show that objective morality exists I only need to show it exists once. Lived experience is how people live, how they act/react in situations. That is objective. How you behave in a given situation is an objective observation. Scientists can observe how something happens and behaves and can draw conclusions from this. If someone says I never get angry but then acts/reacts/behaves angrily then we have objective evidence they do behave angrily. We observe the behavior of someone to determine mental illness. So if someone says I my view it is OK for someone to steal something to make their life better but then reacts against someone who steals from them we can see that they acted contradictory to their view and really believe it is wrong to steal from others. So we can observe people's moral positions in the way they act/react. People act/react as though morality is objective IE that certain things are always wrong. That is the lived experience we can be justified in believing that there is objective morality. Once again I never said that. I said if I wanted to show there was such a thing as mental illness then I only have to show one case of mental illness. No, I am saying when you say [COLOR=#00b3b3][I]There are things that I believe are morally wrong and I could never support. But that doesn't mean that they are objectively wrong.[/I][/COLOR] I am saying that your subjective moral position forbids you from ever saying to anyone that certain moral acts are definitely always wrong no matter what their subjective opinion. That seems counterproductive and going against intuition. Otherwise, if you condemn the act as always evil to the other person you are being objective. I wasn't trying to make that connection. I agree that it doesn't show that the moral objective is true. I am more so appealing to a persons intuition and sense of right and wrong. I am asking why people don't acknowledge that certain evil acts are always wrong regardless of how people justify them under subjective morality. It seems a subjective position forbids them from ever admitting this. That's not the point. It is about human agency. being a human and at least trying all those things. In that way rather than being restricted to try these things in the trolley problem, we are like a robot programmed not to be a human. The point is even if we try and fail we are reducing our intentions about killing. We are showing that we car and respect life and that diminishes our moral culpability. I think this is beginning to become a cop-out. Sometimes it is because everyone believes it is always wrong to do something that makes it objectively wrong and they don't have to believe in God to think that. There are a lot of non-religious people who think certain things are always wrong and therefore objectively wrong. They view people who think that things like sexually abusing a kid as ok and can never be seen as always wrong as sick and deranged. Like I said I think some under subjective morality is forced or programmed to stick to the mantra that something can never be said to be objectively wrong because that will undermine the subjectivist's position. even if that means denying it against all odds and their intuition. Then you don't understand logical arguments. Are you telling me you cannot see the difference between the following positions? [B] Positive claim. [/B]Steve says that there is such a thing as objective morality. Therefore Steve only has to show one example to show that there is objective morality. [B]Negative claim. [/B]Kylie claims there is no objective morality. Kylie cannot prove this by just showing one example as there may be another situation with objective morality. So she has to show every single moral situation to show that there is no objective morality to prove her claim. Not double standards but two completely different claims. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Where does morality come from?
Top
Bottom