This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Morality
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
What if me, and a 1 million other people think chaos and anarchy is the morally right way to live?
That's subjective; same as most morals.
Post by
MyTie
What's your opinion on the holocaust? I mean, the germans thought it was okay, so I guess it wasn't objectively wrong.
Without objective morals, things cannot be objectively immoral.
Let's get rid of laws then, because the death of civilization is not objectively wrong.
You are confusing objectivity with importance.What if me, and a 1 million other people think chaos and anarchy is the morally right way to live?
Subjective morals is tough, because there are so many opinions. Obviously, popularity isn't a very good measure of morals, even though it is an accurate measure of subjective morals.
I have to say, this is the smallest circular argument I've ever been involved in. There are 2, maybe 3, points, and you are running furiously between those points. When you cannot survive on one point, you immediately go back to a point you weren't able to hold together one page ago. What's up with that?
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Azazel
What if me, and a 1 million other people think chaos and anarchy is the morally right way to live?
That's subjective; same as most morals.
I disagree that it's subjective. What now? So we have a group of people who disagree that most morals are subjective, clearly, most morals being subjective is a subjective viewpoint. You lose.
I didn't get any of that.
How can something be objective when it's subjective?
Post by
Adamsm
What if me, and a 1 million other people think chaos and anarchy is the morally right way to live?
That's subjective; same as most morals.
I disagree that it's subjective. What now? So we have a group of people who disagree that most morals are subjective, clearly, most morals being subjective is a subjective viewpoint. You lose.
Oh noes, Sold said I lose....which as seen in dozens of other threads, means he can't come up with a real argument, doesn't know what his own is, and is currently backed into a corner with no real way out. Thank you Sold, for proving once again, that arguing with you is just as fruitful as trying to teach flies how to do the hoe down.
In other words Sold: if you still think the world is broken down into black and white, enjoy your narrow view point of the world, but don't act too surprised when the Gray comes crashing in and upsetting everything.
Post by
MyTie
A is not A which is not B because we all know that A is A and A is not B which is not A. All of you are wrong. I am right. You lose. TROLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO....
Post by
Azazel
Guys, you're going on the personal attack train again..
Question the arguments, not the guy..
Post by
MyTie
Question the arguments, not the guy..
Pages 14-18
Post by
Azazel
Question the arguments, not the guy..
Pages 14-18
I read it. I don't see how it justifies mocking a person.
Post by
MyTie
I read it. I don't see how it justifies mocking a person.
Agreed. I'm not saying he should be mocked. I'm just saying his argument doesn't need any more addressing.
Post by
Azazel
I read it. I don't see how it justifies mocking a person.
Agreed. I'm not saying he should be mocked. I'm just saying his argument doesn't need any more addressing.
You only said "Pages 14-18", but whatever :P
Post by
asakawa
Soldrethar, you're edging closer and closer to outright trolling here and, given your history, I would recommend you take a step away from this thread for a while.
The discussion in this thread has derailed quite badly so I propose that I lock it for a while and then unlock it again tomorrow so the real discussion can hopefully pick up again and continue undisrupted. I hope the participants of the thread are okay with this idea.
(##RESPBREAK##)16##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##
Post by
asakawa
Unlocking this thread now.
Please remember to always read responses fully and always respond to the points raised and not the user making them.
Consider mentally playing devil's advocate before replying to get a better sense of what others in the topic are saying.
Thanks for the patience everyone. Please feel free to ignore posts on the last couple of pages and perhaps take the discussion in a new direction completely (within the main topic of course).
Post by
MyTie
I read a post recently (forget who posted it) that had a complicated moral issue about kids on boats during the spread of the vaccine for smallpox. I would have to say that I do not find it moral to kill one person to save the whole world. What I mean is that the ends do not justify the means.
Post by
asakawa
That real situation sounds like a fairly direct translation of
the trolley problem
which is always interesting to think about. I really recommend people take a moment to read through the issues raised.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
asakawa
So, scenario 1:
Train about to hit 5 people. You can switch the track so the train hits only one person or take no action and 5 people die.
Scenario 2:
you throw one person in front of the train to save 5 people.
Most people, when asked, will judge that scenario 1 is morally acceptable. and would flip the switch. Most people also think that scenario 2 is morally unacceptable and would not throw the man on the tracks.
You would do neither Sold? In both scenarios you would remain inactive, leading the the deaths of 10 people rather than only 2?
@fenomas, I hope there haven't been many situations that are direct examples of the trolley problem tbh ^_^
Though the consequences are different and the potential numbers of people helped are vastly greater I think it's a similar enough way to think about it. Perhaps most people would let kids get infected and moved around the world but less people would actually kidnap and inject the kids themselves. Would that not be a comparable scenario?(##RESPBREAK##)16##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.