marciosmg said:
vlad321 said:
Comrade Tovya said:
vlad321 said:
marciosmg said:
I think we will never completely agree because of that. I believe some morality is subjective and some are objective.
You don't.
Now, here is a question: Do you believe that "right and wrong" does not exist or do you believe that us, humans, can never be sure if our "right and wrong" is the correct one?
|
Neither actually. Everyone has their own definition of right and wrong and everyone is sure that theirs is the right one, and what is right to some is wrong to others. Therefore right and wrong doesn't exist simply because we, humanity as a whole, will never be sure of what right and wrong is.
Edit: P.S. Why the hell does every time I have tests/project due the morning I end up in a philosophical argument in VGC? Maybe that explain my grades this semester....
|
Neither right or wrong exists? So Adolf Hitler's definition of "right" by exterminating Jews, Gypsys, Gays, and Cripples is subjective... and according to your definition, we shall never know whether or not Hitler was good or evil, because his definition of "good" is good for him?
If the definition of "good" and "evil" have no true guidelines, then what is the fabric of morality? Why feed the hungry in Africa? Why protect a woman from sexual assault? Why even call the police if I witness a thief breaking into my neighbors home?
If the meaning of "good" means nothing at all, then why have a United Nations to help prevent war? Afterall, under your definition of good, an evil dictator who slaughters his own populace may be considered justified in murder. If my neighbor wants to kill random people who drives past his home, how can I call this evil? Afterall, for him, he might very well consider it good to murder.
Such subjectivity would mean the unravelling of our society, and a meltdown of all social standards. The very fact that the Western world has setup a court and system of laws directly opposes your way of thinking, therefore providing no justification for such a loose standard of morality. Therefore your assertion that it is impossible to say whether or any given activity is wrong or right is in total defiance of the very system which you take part in everyday.
A society that has no standard in which to define wrong or right would break down into anarchy.
|
Oh dear, did you at least read the entire conversation or did you just skim it? People from our point of view label him as evil, meanwhile from Hitler's point of view everything was good and trying to stop him was evil. Who's right then? Us? Just because we decided to label genocide as evil? Who says genocide is evil? Is there anything that tells us that genocide is evil outside of what we, ourselves, decided? There is absolutely nothing in the universe that labels something as evil, we do that ourselves, therefore it's completely and utterly subjective. The proof of that is that there were people who thought of the holocaust was righteous. As to the court, we created that court so we can give even more authority to spread our very subjective morals. I'm not saying let's live without morals, everything will just end up in anarchy, there are obviously morals which should be enforced, as you have pointed out, murder, and ones that don't have such a high priority, like abortion in this case.
|
Man, I wish you would read more carefully waht you yourself write. Time and time again, you come with the notion of subjective morality and then, a few lines later, you sart naming things that should be prevented because they are objectively bad.
How do you think notions of morality came? You think people just one day woke up, and started to pick things at random and start naming moral or immoral?
|
