Where is the Objective Morality?

[Tanj]

Respectfully, those would be subjective views.

Exactly. Since no two people will agree on what is or is not compassionate, by definition it's not objectively anything, moral or otherwise.

 

[childeye 2]

Exactly. Since no two people will agree on what is or is not compassionate, by definition it's not objectively anything, moral or otherwise.

Respectfully, you're reasoning upon a semantical construct by conflating compassion with the subjective mental deliberation of whether euthanasia is morally right or wrong.

 

[Tanj]

Respectfully, you're reasoning upon a semantical construct by conflating compassion with the subjective mental deliberation of whether euthanasia is morally right or wrong.

You are aware the more you use the word respectfully the less respectful it is, right? At any rate, what I am actually trying to conflate is compassion with a definition of compassion. Otherwise lets argue over whether zooblflubflub is objectively moral.

And while I am here, why "mental deliberation"? Is there another kind of deliberation?

 

[childeye 2]

You are aware the more you use the word respectfully the less respectful it is, right?

No, I don't see it as such. I figure that respect is earned and lost. But it sounds like you're suggesting I'm being insincere. You might consider that "Respectfully" simply conveys "I mean no disrespect".

At any rate, what I am actually trying to conflate is compassion with a definition of compassion. Otherwise lets argue over whether zooblflubflub is objectively moral.

And while I am here, why "mental deliberation"? Is there another kind of deliberation?

Euthanasia and compassion are not the same thing because euthanasia is a chosen course of action. While I agree that out of compassion a person would want to end, and not prolong, the suffering of someone who is terminally ill by putting them to death painlessly, that does not qualify as an immoral intention or goal any more than giving them morphine or any other painkiller to ease their passing. Hence the claim that you're "conflating compassion with a definition of compassion" can only mean that you are aware that compassion would never desire to prolong the suffering of others.

The objective fact of the matter is that Compassion is not the product of any mental deliberation, it's a heartfelt reaction to seeing the suffering of others and wanting to ease that suffering. The scenario you present is a mental deliberation after the fact, because it's a difficult decision whether it's right or wrong to take someone's life in such a circumstance. Therefore, it's a semantical construct to frame the question as whether they should be compassionate or not, because this conflates the heartfelt compassion with the mental deliberation of whether it's right or wrong to euthanize.

 

[Moral Orel]

Since no two people will agree on what is or is not compassionate, by definition it's not objectively anything, moral or otherwise.

Disagreement proves subjectivity?

 

[Astrid]

No, I don't see it as such. I figure that respect is earned and lost. But it sounds like you're suggesting I'm being insincere. You might consider that "Respectfully" simply conveys "I mean no disrespect".



Euthanasia and compassion are not the same thing because euthanasia is a chosen course of action. While I agree that out of compassion a person would want to end, and not prolong, the suffering of someone who is terminally ill by putting them to death painlessly, that does not qualify as an immoral intention or goal any more than giving them morphine or any other painkiller to ease their passing. Hence the claim that you're "conflating compassion with a definition of compassion" can only mean that you are aware that compassion would never desire to prolong the suffering of others.

The objective fact of the matter is that Compassion is not the product of any mental deliberation, it's a heartfelt reaction to seeing the suffering of others and wanting to ease that suffering. The scenario you present is a mental deliberation after the fact, because it's a difficult decision whether it's right or wrong to take someone's life in such a circumstance. Therefore, it's a semantical construct to frame the question as whether they should be compassionate or not, because this conflates the heartfelt compassion with the mental deliberation of whether it's right or wrong to euthanize.

" no offense intended but" " I am sorry but"
" respectfully / no disrespect intended..."
"I was joking"

Are all read as insincere, as just a try at getting away
with something.
Its not smart using them in the small chance they
will be thought sincere.

 

[Astrid]

Disagreement proves subjectivity?

Sure tends to demonstrate it.
Shall we have you list day to day examples of objectivity
in, oh, fashion, food, cars, art, entertainment, ...?

 

[Astrid]

No, I don't see it as such. I figure that respect is earned and lost. But it sounds like you're suggesting I'm being insincere. You might consider that "Respectfully" simply conveys "I mean no disrespect".



Euthanasia and compassion are not the same thing because euthanasia is a chosen course of action. While I agree that out of compassion a person would want to end, and not prolong, the suffering of someone who is terminally ill by putting them to death painlessly, that does not qualify as an immoral intention or goal any more than giving them morphine or any other painkiller to ease their passing. Hence the claim that you're "conflating compassion with a definition of compassion" can only mean that you are aware that compassion would never desire to prolong the suffering of others.

The objective fact of the matter is that Compassion is not the product of any mental deliberation, it's a heartfelt reaction to seeing the suffering of others and wanting to ease that suffering. The scenario you present is a mental deliberation after the fact, because it's a difficult decision whether it's right or wrong to take someone's life in such a circumstance. Therefore, it's a semantical construct to frame the question as whether they should be compassionate or not, because this conflates the heartfelt compassion with the mental deliberation of whether it's right or wrong to euthanize.

So compassion is objective because it is an emotion.
" A heartfelt reaction".

We see interesting places for this to go.

 

[stevevw]

There can be no disagreement under subjective morality as there are no morals but rather only preferences and feelings which cannot be wrong. So any disagreement is an oxymoron under subjective morality.

 

[childeye 2]

" no offense intended but" " I am sorry but"
" respectfully / no disrespect intended..."
"I was joking"

Are all read as insincere, as just a try at getting away
with something.
Its not smart using them in the small chance they
will be thought sincere.

It's simply a formality. It's not even possible to dodge the cynicisms of people who have lost faith in any common goodness so why try? Let the cynics applaud the speech of the depraved. Let them aspire to be the one who can says the "best" hurtful things, and let them feel lifted up in themselves with the best cut downs. Although I cannot deny they deserve some measure of pity, I cannot be impressed by what is disgraceful.

 

[childeye 2]

So compassion is objective because it is an emotion.
" A heartfelt reaction".

We see interesting places for this to go.

Reality is authoritative. There's nowhere to go, there are only things to learn. Either a person has experienced compassion and knows that it's a goodness, or you're ignorant of what good means.

 

[Astrid]

Reality is authoritative. There's nowhere to go, there are only things to learn. Either a person has experienced compassion and knows that it's a goodness, or you're ignorant of what good means.

Are you now denying your positiiion that objective morality is based in feelings?
Are you unaware that "emotional" and " objective" are like opposites?

 

[childeye 2]

Are you now denying your positiiion that objective morality is based in feelings?

Are you unaware that "emotional" and " objective" are like opposites?

Reality is authoritative. I don't know how many times I have to say that. Subjective personal feelings are the same as a personal bias or personal opinions. Whereas compassion has been proven to be common in all of humanity, and it is prompted by someone else's suffering, so it is not a personal feeling, bias, or opinion. You've never felt compassion for anyone?

 

[Astrid]

Reality is authoritative. I don't know how many times I have to say that. Subjective personal feelings are the same as a personal bias or personal opinions. Whereas compassion has been proven to be common in all of humanity, and it is prompted by someone else's suffering, so it is not a personal feeling, bias, or opinion. You've never felt compassion for anyone?

Repeat a meaningless phrase a million times
it wont give it meaning.

All feelings, emotions, are emotions.

Trying to make absolute objective morals out of feelings,
is so absurd i can hardly believe you are really claiming it.

 

[childeye 2]

Repeat a meaningless phrase a million times
it wont give it meaning.

All feelings, emotions, are emotions.

Trying to make absolute objective morals out of feelings,
is so absurd i can hardly believe you are really claiming it.

You misunderstand what objective means then. It means it's real and not made up in the mind according to one's personal subjective view. Hence reality is authoritative. Compassion is real, a real reaction to a real perceived suffering. What have you got against it? Have you never felt compassion for anyone?

 

[FireDragon76]

You misunderstand what objective means. It means it's real and not made up in the mind according to one's subjective view. Hence reality is authoritative. Compassion is real, a reaction to real suffering. What have you got against it? Have you never felt compassion for anyone?

Subjectivity is real, it just doesn't exist in a mind-independent manner.

 

[childeye 2]

Subjectivity is real, it just doesn't exist in a mind-independent manner.

Of course, because each individual has their own unique personal view of the reality we share. Hence compassion exists independent of any one person's subjective view.

 

[FireDragon76]

Of course, because each individual has their own unique personal view of the reality we share. Hence compassion exists independent of any one person's subjective view.

It exists as a concept. Concept and reality are not necessarily the same thing.

 

[childeye 2]

It exists as a concept. Concept and reality are not necessarily the same thing.

Compassion is a word for a real naturally occurring phenomenon. Compassion is not a concept, it is a conscious awareness of the reality of someone else's suffering, with a desire to alleviate it. People actually weep for others through the experience of compassion. Anyone who has ever observed this, and actually has had a sensible experience of compassion, knows this. And they also know that the weeping was not the product of their own individual idea/thought.

con·cept
/ˈkänˌsept/
noun
1.an abstract idea; a general notion:

no·tion
/ˈnōSH(ə)n/
noun
1.a conception of or belief about something:

suf·fer·ing
/ˈsəf(ə)riNG/
noun
1.the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship:"weapons that cause unnecessary suffering"

compassion
: sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it

-----------------------------------------------------------
objective
(Entry 1 of 2)

1a: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations

2a: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind.

 

[Moral Orel]

Sure tends to demonstrate it.
Shall we have you list day to day examples of objectivity
in, oh, fashion, food, cars, art, entertainment, ...?

Nah, I'm content with you agreeing that whatever we believe to be "morally right" or "morally wrong" is just as arbitrary as things like fashion, food, cars, art, entertainment...