Can't tell if Extra credits is back at it or if it's an early April fool's joke

#21

Hey not bored here

#22

Moral maxims, the categorical Imperative etc to determine what can and cannot be applied universally. IE murder is wrong, everyone senselessly murders eachother we all die.
Straightforward. 1+1 =2
But saying murdering these 3 people is justified if it saves 100 is where it gets subjective and thats why its called a dilemma.

We can’t measure harm but we know it exists, the scale comes down to whether or not the ends justify the means.

Quality control comes down to utilitarians vs relativists. Though it gets less and less accurate the broader the scope of the action. Moral dilemmas are an eternal debate because they are exactly that, dilemmas and you’re trading lives so there isnt a right answer because murder is wrong, its on the moral agent to justify the means, determine alternatives etc and this is whats subjective and morally grey. Granted if you’re full on utilitarian its just math.

#23

From what your saying it sounds like my other comment nailed it

Morality is subjective
But efficiency of actions to the best case scenario of humanity is objective

#24

It’s not neccessarily efficent at all and people can harm themselves to assist others.

Certain actions in practice or intention, produce objectively observable results that fit an objectively observable criteria we call moral.

You’re determining whether an action results in less harm, increased potential, and will it be fair. The last one being the kicker.
Fairness is subjective, though we’re wired a certain way.
A killing spree is not. Harm for the sake of harm.

Outside that tiny scope though moral statements have many objectively valid answers, and also many objectively invalid answers. Theres rational and irrational ways to handle a situation. But there are so many variables eventually youd expect failure.

#25

Ya but the hope is that everyone gets out of the situation as best as possible, thus being efficient for some one to risk their life for others, especially if it’s numerous others.

Either way call the objective side what you will, we’re arguing about morality and what side of the coin that’s on.

I wouldn’t call that morality, if we search it up on chrome we get this

a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.

Which uses subjective terminology

We also get

principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior

the extent to which an action is right or wrong

Which doesn’t use subjective terminology, but it also doesn’t strictly say it’s objective either.

However I know some people say the definitions on the internet are absolutely perfect and others say it’s pathetic to use it as any sort of indicator of definition so take that as you will.

Either way I say morality Is on the side of subjective as it’s about what someone thinks.

#26

Leaning more towards collective morality above.

Morality and reasoning are hand in hand.
We can reason so we’re moral agents.

Is there an objective difference between the harm that hugging someone produces compared to the harm of raping them? Measurable enough to be applied? As outside observers.

#27

So let’s breakdown what were saying

I’m saying there is a subjective take on right and wrong and that’s morality

And there’s an objective take on right and wrong that’s something else

Your saying that there is an objective take on right and wrong and that’s morality

So what would you say is the subjective take on morality?

#28

Pure subjective morality is anarchy.

Selective morality itself requires objective morality to define its limits. Because there is already and always will be a criteria.

#29

Anarchy is a belief that there shouldn’t be any rules or government. Doesn’t mean you think

What are you saying here?

In order to have a subjective opinion you have to use facts?

#30

Put it like this - subjective morality is a rejection of morality.
Moral implies a comparison with a moral standard. If there is no moral standard other than what an individuals sense of what is right for him to do, (which is what subjective morality amounts to), the person cannot do anything immoral. If there is no morality, then it follows hugging vs raping produce an indifferent amount of harm.

With purely subjective morality any attempt to restrain someone from any action would be imposing ones morals on another, which would be the only remaining immoral behavior.

#31

That’s like saying if you believe in subjective enjoyment out of a film you reject the notion of an objective quality in films.

You can have both.

The moral standard is just what society expects from you which is different from culture to culture and society to society. Doesn’t mean it uses an objective standard for that moral standard.

That is one of the dumber parts about subjective morality

Even Hitler becomes a hero to some one

But that doesn’t disprove it, just shows the stupidity of the situation.

So what your saying is, in a world where only subjective morality exists, it’s an objective moral standard to not impose your morals on others…

That makes no sense what so ever.

Your breaking your own rule of the world you set up, to prove that subjective morality would not work as a society, when your describing an anarchist society.

This counters this

Not to mention this only points out that it’s a bad way to run a society (which is an anarchist society btw, not one ran by subjective opinions) and not that it doesn’t exist.

So your argument, even if it was right, is a non statement.

No it doesn’t

If you can say it’s okay to rape people, I can say it’s okay to stop you from saying it, therefore applying a moral standard, in the same world where their is only subjective morality.

Let’s take this up a notch and say I will throw you in a cell for disobeying my moral standard of rape is bad, while also still retaining it as subjective, therefore is not an anarchist society

Long story short

Subjective morality =/= Anarchism

#32

Moral statements vs value statements. Its not a matter of “is murder wrong” its a matter of “is murder wrong IF”

That’s collective morality.
This is golden rule.

You, a culpable morally sufficient agent aware of the consequences & potential of suffering due to your human ability to reason and empathize. (can include what others would do to you if caught but thats collective and this is why they’re conflated) Would a rational being then act in an objectively harmful way? Are mental illness and personal health subjective because of our limited understanding of the human brain? Likewise this is our limited understanding of harm and our ability to reason.

?

You’re preventing someone from acting on their own notion of right and wrong and denying them their subjective morality.
You can’t apply a moral standard if you argue that its indifferent. You’re thinking of collective, not subjective, morality. Subjective morality is acting on whims, it argues that its entirely on the individual to make it up as he goes along without reason and assume it works. Nietzsche’s idea because he was a bum and rejected any kind of natural social cohesion even existing sans 24/7 hedonism

If your actions are both rational and not harmful to others, then they are objectively moral. If you disregard that without a logical rationalization then its immoral.

#33

How does this even relate?

You say you can’t have objective standard with subjective standard

I say thats not true

You say objective morality doesn’t say murder is wrong, it goes is murder wrong if?

That response makes no sense

What’s you point here?

No

Mental illnesses and personal health can be objectified because of the differences between their brain and what a regular brain should do

I’m not much of a psychologist though so IDK.

Your point does not disprove me

Yes I am

But whether that is subjective moraly right is subjective

I never said It was indifferent

I’m saying it’s subjective but I can still have my own opinions as strong as any one else can just like how some one can love a movie to death and another can hate as much as possible.

Collective morality is just what society expects from you

Which can either come from subjectivity or objectivity, meaning me applying my own personal morality to others is moral standard/collective morality

…

No that’s ACTING ON A WHIM

The idea behind subjective morality is that you can have an opinion on right and wrong

For instance I like AVPR

Why? Because wolf is amazing and the fight scenes are also amazing.

I used logic to explain my reasoning as to why I have my subjective opinion.

But AVPR is still aweful because of its bad characters

Let’s try it with morality

Let’s pretend limiting freedom of speech actauly helped and caused crime to go down (magic I don’t know)

But I can still believe that it’s immoral on the grounds that you don’t have the right to take freedom of speech away

I’m going against objective morality since limiting speach would reduce murder rates and assaults but I still believe it.

Yes we agree that there’s an objective standard morality that you can use.

Where we disagree on is whether or not that objective standard is called morality (so literally an argument about definitions)

And whether or not subjective morality means Anarchism

#34

You and @Finessology seem to love going over this subject lmao.

1 Like
#35

Not as much as other subjects but I made some very bad arguments last time in defense of morality so I have to regain my honor this time

1 Like
#36

In totally unrelated news, Lindsay Ellis has been ‘cancelled’. Live by the sword etc etc.

1 Like
#37

image
image480×542 20.2 KB

This is fucking stupid

1 Like
#38

No thats called having an opinion. Subjective morality is arguing there is no right or wrong because everyone does what they want & everything is up to each individual interpretation, as everyone sees everything differently even the most basic of concepts. It follows that people are only able to reach consensus and make generalizations based on fear of a mass bias which we know isnt the case because then who implements a mass bias if its not something we do innately as moral agents? We are guided in a course of correct action as rational and empathetic creatures, but have outliers. People have different levels of empathy but they still know murder is wrong sans the brain damaged (and we can factually prove the existence of the brain damaged, just as we know trauma/harm.) and life is a finite resource that we witness ourselves.

We’re able to reason that murder is senseless harm and senseless harm is bad, the rational brain calculates consequences and alternatives.
We’re able to reach a concensus that the color blue is blue.
We’re able to discern color though its based on perceptions alone even though we cant know thats what it looks like for certain, but are able to meet a generalization/standard. What we impose on others collectively in an attempt to make a more accurate generalization is the name of that color and the exact hue of blue. Generalizations aren’t always accurate but there is an observable level of consistency in whats right and wrong not dictated by an outside factor of fear of collective bias, but knowing that its innately wrong for me to murder you for liking AVPR without requiring a goverment to tell me so, if that makes sense. Low empathy serial killers are aware they are performing an immoral action for personal satisfaction, thats the appeal of taking life from another for a dopamine high - they know its wrong. We’ve conducted thought experiments on mass murders, they always lean utilitarian because its math, moral relativism requires a higher level of empathy but even they don’t want the same actions performed on themselves they just dont apply it to the equation when decision-making. Likewise toddlers in their early stages of awareness tend to fight and will beat up smaller kids until the shoe is on the other foot then they rationalize “Wow being kicked back hurts, I would not like that to happen to me” thus the golden rule is now in effect. Creating immoral psychos by absolving individuals of moral duties is replicable.

Whether or not you want to argue if we truly know or percieve anything is a seperate issue though that seeks to absolve anyone of moral duties and can’t be applied to whats observable to us. If you believe nothing matters then you simply end yourself outside of fear of the unknown. It’s all a side effect of being self aware, but people’s level of awareness and ability to problem solve varies.

These are natural rights which leans more towards ethics as a foundation of law. I’m arguing that specifically because we are self-aware beings we have a concept of right and wrong.

Oh ok. Then we’re disagreeing on whether or not its collective? You create an immoral being with an objective lack of value for the life of others simply by absolving them of consequence IE toddlers above. Do not need a government to influence you. We have concept of what it is to be “done unto,” making the golden rule of morality as universal as our concept of casuality, is my point. Without the notion of harm and the ability to learn you don’t know what it means to be done unto and your generalization will be less accurate.

#39

NOOOOOOOOO

You can believe in subjective morality and still want to limit what people can and can’t do for the betterment of society.

What’s with you and thinking that me and fire are anarchists?

What?

Your adding so much to this.

You can use logic to fuel an opinion or morality, and you can believe that in a subjective morality that limiting others morality is what’s the best thing to do.

A. You can still have common opinions, after all we are pack animals

B. You can still use logic and reason, it’s just not morality

Yes logic can fuel opinionsl or use an objective measurement

Without government authorization…

You can still do something you think is wrong

And I’m arguing that I can believe something that results in more deaths is the morally right choice.

I.E subjective morality

A. That doesn’t disprove anything

B. Don’t absolve them of consequence then

Again how is this disproving my point

Your main arguments seem to be explaining the effectiveness of each idea at running a society (assuming subjective morality is anarchism)

#41

1 Like