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

#42

If you genuinely believe its all open to interpretation then what are you doing limiting others?
The greater good is a seperate utilitarian notion. There is no greater good in moral relativism. Its the difference between a ruler and a yardstick but we know distance itself exists.

Without discussing ethics/law - If everyone has different subjective perceptions of the color blue we cannot reach a definitive conclusion.
Either you believe you can draw conclusive perceptions as an outside observer or you believe you cannot. Is the basic concept of morality itself subjective if we know people experience harm and can reason alternative action? As for “then dont absolve consequences” morality itself is a consequence. Harm is just nonmaterial cause and effect. We know what it means to be done unto so the golden rule is a concrete concept.

Whats up for debate is your method of measurement but ALL methods of measurement are built off the universal notion - that harm for the sake of harm is blanket immorality. Life and its experiences are a finite resource thus have value.

#43

Simple

I believe it’s okay to limit others

Not that hard to understand

Again

Subject morality does NOT equal anarchism

How many times have I said this now?

#44

Because you have concept of a greater good. The golden rule and greater good are not the same. Greater good is a measured justification & utilitarian debate. The golden rule is an experience.
Harm for the sake of harm is still a universal evil. The cause and effect does not compute if you’re torturing people as a passtime. Its objectively not a positive experience for the harmed individuals and you’re inflicting harm solely because witnessing harm provides a positive experience for yourself. We can verify the torturer is not indifferent to the same torture being inflicted upon himself nor is he able to make an objectively detrimental experience a good thing as he dies simply by having an opinion. We can measure what prevents harm to ourselves, there are good and bad things and we can inflict them upon others.

“I want to limit free speech because I believe this has potential to prevent harm” isnt an objectively immoral statement.

#45

But how far do you go is subjective

Like my earlier example, some people will think limiting speach is the greater good, while others will value speach as the greater good because of how different people individually value the arguments.

Well In my subjective take I say it is immoral

Your literally arguing against the existence of subjectivity

I can think that something is good

Therefore it is a subjective take regardless of evidence

#46

This is the only official study I look to for AvP.

1 Like
#47

Yes. Ruler. Yardstick.

“Eating mcdonalds every day for a year is good for me.”

Objectively no its not. Your doctor pathologically lying and telling you that with harmful intentions would be an immoral action.
Harm is harm independent of opinion.

#48

Which is subjective

Ya there’s is an objective way to measure right and wrong

But it’s not morality

And I’d actually say movies would be a better example

Your opinion can disagree with the objective quality of the film without you being an idiot

Your mcdonald’s example is truth versus perception

My movie example is opinion versus objectivity

Morality is opinion versus objectivity, whatever you want to call that objective standard I don’t care but it’s definitely not morality

#49

:|

What is objective right and wrong called?

Yes, the unit of measurement is subjective. The things
that are being measured are not, suffering vs happiness just vary in level of intensity. Justification is subjective. To know that being kicked hurts and know what it is to be kicked is not subjective. Subjective is “this hurts a lot vs this hurts a little” because we have so many variables.
The measurement is what’s limited by our perception and our limited understanding of what it means to experience and know. But we know what it is to be kicked and intend to kick unto others.

There’s a difference between an amoral position and an immoral action. A moral question needs to be addressed by a moral positions that make a positive claim.
There are things outside moral dilemmas we consider universal wrongs because they meet a criteria of inflicted harm for the sake of harm. Your doctor intentionally misinforming you above, Torture, killing sprees etc. Harm as a means to harm.

#50

I just wanna say that Redguards and Khajit are killed on sight whenever I pop in Skyrim. If I wanna be a racist dark elf, please realize it’s entirely from socio-economic issues within the games engine.

2 Likes
#51

In a world where there is no objective moral behavior, there is objective moral behavior

#52

Because that person cannot do anything wrong.

The only wrong thing there is to do is to stop someone from doing something at that point.

Do you get it now?

#53

Jesus fucking christ

In a world where there is no objective morality, and only subjective morality, applying someone’s morals to some one else falls into morally fine by their subjective morality.

Your point is completely contradictory.

In a world with no objective morality, I can go:

Hey, based on my morality I’m going to stop you from doing something I find immoral even though you don’t find that action immoral

#54

In a word with no objective morality they’d be doing literally nothing wrong, so there’s nothing to stop. The incorrect action would be preventing that cause -> effect with the basis that morals don’t exist.

I can’t believe you were pondering this for months

#55

What the fuck I never said this

No objective wrong

But by my subjective they are.

Even if this wasn’t the case, applying my subjective morals to another would not be wrong to do as well. Meaning I can kill a murder because he murdered someone. Or lock him up.

Again, your argument is, in a world where there is no objective morality, there is objective morality.

Seriously. If nothing is morally wrong then I can hire people to stop other people from committing murders by rule of no objective morality.

Applying subjective morals to others is no different of an action to everything else.

#56

@Fire your smart. You can see the issue here right?

#57

Yeah it’s that you never make a good point.

Lmao jk, il come back to this after I shower.

1 Like
#58

Fak you

#59

you bumped this thread out of nowhere nerd

Yes it would because they literally cannot do anything wrong.

Stopping someone from doing nothing wrong is the only outlier

#60

Ok help me out here, it’s more than I thought it was. What did you want me look at here?

#61

A. You told me to do that

B. You said I was pondering this for months. No I wasn’t. Pay attention

How. If everything is subjective how is this objectively determined?

There’s nothing to objectify it