Morality is Objective.

Author: YouFound_Lxam

Posts

Total: 133
#91
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@b9_ntt
@Tarik

A standard is a social objective that can be lived up to or not, rather than an objective concept per se.

Though a standard is a variable ideal, so only a standard relative to a collective decision.

And how collective decisions are influenced and reached is open to question.

The Russia/Ukraine situation is an obvious example.

How does the Russia/Ukraine situation measure up morally?
#92
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@Tarik
How do you prove that?
I can't.
#93
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@zedvictor4
How does the Russia/Ukraine situation measure up morally?
Right now, many more national governments support Ukraine, saying that Russia invaded them.
Russia claims the territory as theirs, and claims their territory is run by Nazis. Most non-Russians outside of China don't believe that.
Putin thinks the war is justified, because there are many Russian-speaking people living there, because the territory was Russian except for a few decades, and because the nations bordering Russia keep joining NATO. I think those are good reasons. He also claims that the legitimate pro-Russian president was ousted illegally. I don't have an opinion about that.
Obama did nothing when Putin annexed Crimea.
Overall, it's a mixed bag. I support Ukraine because I think Putin is a dictator leading a kleptocracy.
Morally? I honestly don't know.

#94
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@b9_ntt
I can't.
Then why’d you claim it?
#95
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@b9_ntt
Morally? I honestly don't know.
On face of it, we have Ukraine that is a sovereign democratic nation who voluntarily removed their nuclear weapon abilities.

Russia  bombing apartment buildings in Kyiv.
...terrorsim....

Russia started this war and appears to have been committing many cases of crimes against humanity or crimminal actions on a sovereign peoples.

This is why I support USA actions in Ukraine.
#96
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@Tarik
I shouldn't have said that.
#97
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@b9_ntt
I shouldn't have said that. 
Then what should you have said?
#98
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@b9_ntt
One says what one says, and "shouldn't have" is irrelevant.

You can always say something else.


#99
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts are not trapped by absolute truths.

Ex Meta-space mind can create false narrative that is mixture of relative truth, absolute truth and lies. This seperates the human from all other animals.

Yes some animals have ways of decieving other animals, so we may say, this is one of the ways they have some degree of access to Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts. Ex the bird that goes into another birds nest, kicks out one of the eggs and leaves its egg to be hatched by another bird.

Whats that all about? Is it just being lazy? Can a bird be lazy?If cats can be lazy then why not birds? Of course a lazy bird can be caught by a non-lazy cat.

Does any of this involve morality of animals other than humans? Are birds, cats etc objective and subjectively applying morality to their actions of deception?
#100
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,983
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Morality is objective only as a measure of Darwinian fitness.
#101
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@Tarik
I should have said nothing.
#102
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ebuc
Exactly.

Morality is a concept relative only to the conceiver.

And as far as we are able to know thus far, the human is the only organism that conceives the notion of morality relative to it's behaviour.

And the lazy cat is only lazy because we create a state of laziness for it.

Though the lazy cat will always instinctively kill the slow bird.....Morality not a consideration.
#103
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
As I understand it, moral relativism posits that moral principles are not inherent or objective, but rather they are relative to an individual's culture and history. I argue that this is a more accurate way to view morality, as evidenced by the fact that moral values and principles vary widely across cultures and time periods.

For example, in some cultures, it is considered morally acceptable to eat certain types of meat, such as dogs or horses, while in other cultures, this is considered morally wrong. Similarly, in some cultures, polygamy is considered morally acceptable, while in others, it is considered morally wrong. These differences in moral values and principles highlight the subjective nature of morality and suggest that there are no universal moral standards that apply to all people and situations.

Moreover, historical changes in moral values and principles also suggest that morality is not inherent or objective, but rather it is shaped by cultural and historical factors. For example, in the United States, slavery was once considered morally acceptable, but over time, the moral values of society shifted, and slavery became recognized as morally wrong. Similarly, attitudes towards homosexuality have shifted over time, from being considered morally wrong to being more widely accepted.

In conclusion, the fact that moral values and principles vary widely across cultures and time periods suggests that morality is not inherent or objective, but rather it is relative to an individual's culture and history. The examples of cultural differences in moral values, such as the acceptance of eating certain types of meat or polygamy, and historical changes in moral values, such as the recognition of slavery as morally wrong, demonstrate that morality is not universal or objective, but rather it is shaped by cultural and historical factors.
#104
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
The examples of cultural differences in moral values, such as the acceptance of eating certain types of meat or polygamy, and historical changes in moral values, such as the recognition of slavery as morally wrong, demonstrate that morality is not universal or objective, but rather it is shaped by cultural and historical factors.
Societies failure to recognize slavery as morally wrong doesn’t mean morality is relative, it just means society was once upon a time ignorant in that regard.
#105
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@b9_ntt
I should have said nothing.
Okay well I’ll say this, our understanding of subjective opinions comes from within the nature in which we’re conceived which we don’t choose, we do however choose to be moral people. I touched on this “subject” in greater depth here https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5467-what-i-realized
#106
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@Tarik
Thanks for the link. I read the first page and am interested in the topic. Since there are 449 posts, it will take me awhile to get through it and perhaps to respond.
#107
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tarik
Having another perspective on any matter is always beneficial, so I appreciate you speaking up.

In regard to your statement:
Societies’ failure to recognize slavery as morally wrong doesn’t mean morality is relative, it just means society was once upon a time ignorant in that regard.
Although I understand that you are suggesting that people in the past were ignorant about the moral implications of slavery, you are still referring to moral implications of slavery that are based on today's moral standards, which is moral relativism. By reframing the question to whether slavery is beneficial to society and the world as a whole, we can determine whether it should be perpetuated. This is a clear example of why slavery is not currently in use today. It caused more harm than good to society as a whole, as evidenced by riots, wars, and other violent problems.

#108
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@b9_ntt
Since there are 449 posts, it will take me awhile to get through it and perhaps to respond.
I don’t need you to read all 449 posts, I just thought the original post was relevant.
#109
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
It caused more harm than good to society as a whole, as evidenced by riots, wars, and other violent problems.
Operative word being evidence which is an objective term.
#110
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tarik
Yes, I was speaking objectively. Referring to something subjectively does not allow one to speak for the whole, as that refers to individuals experiences and interpretations. Therefore, when I spoke of harm to society as a whole, I was being objective because 'overall' requires objectivity.
#111
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
It caused more harm than good to society as a whole, as evidenced by riots, wars, and other violent problems.
This argument just opens another can of worms because where’s the evidence that riots, wars, and other forms of violence are harmful?
#112
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tarik
I appreciate your skepticism towards commonly accepted ideas. It is essential to question and critically evaluate why something is considered true rather than taking it for granted.

To summarize my previous statement, I was discussing the harmful impact of slavery on society as a whole. I was speaking objectively and specifically referring to the immediate consequences of this institution.

The term "harmful" refers to anything that causes or has the potential to cause damage, injury, or negative consequences to individuals, groups, communities, or the environment. Something is considered harmful if it poses a threat to health, well-being, or safety towards a certain object or being.

It is important to recognize that harmful actions can have both present and future consequences. While I appreciate your inquiry into what defines harm, it is crucial to consider the timeframe being referred to. In my previous statement, I was specifically referring to the immediate present.

However, when assessing the full extent of harm caused, it is essential to also acknowledge potential future consequences. For instance, certain wars, such as the Civil War, resulted in significant immediate harm with many lives lost, yet had long-term positive effects such as the abolition of slavery.

Therefore, while violent events like riots and wars can have immediate negative consequences, it is crucial to acknowledge that they may also have potential positive and negative consequences in the future. It is important to weigh the costs and benefits of any action carefully, taking into account both immediate and long-term impacts.
#113
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tarik
@zedvictor4
@YouFound_Lxam
I would like to invite YouFound_Lxam to a debate, I will argue morality is relative. This is assuming you disagree, as you are the author of this forum called "Morality is Objective".
Topic's author
#114
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Critical-Tim
Make the debate and I will accept.


#115
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
Referring to something subjectively does not allow one to speak for the whole, as that refers to individuals experiences and interpretations.
But if the one judging there experience is ignorant then whatever their interpretation is irrelevant, objectively speaking.
#116
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tarik
@zedvictor4
If I understand correctly, you're evaluating a person's moral worth based on the accepted morals of society, which isn't an objective or stable form of morality because societal norms change across cultures and generations. This implies a collective subjective morality that is based on ethics.

I'm interested in gaining a more comprehensive understanding of your perspective on morals, and would appreciate your thoughts to be posted on the "Morality is Objective" debate that I, "Critical-Tim," and "YouFound_Lxam" are currently debating in.
#117
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
If I understand correctly, you're evaluating a person's moral worth based on the accepted morals of society, which isn't an objective or stable form of morality because societal norms change across cultures and generations. 
No, a person’s moral worth is based on whether or not they go to heaven.

I'm interested in gaining a more comprehensive understanding of your perspective on morals, and would appreciate your thoughts to be posted on the "Morality is Objective" debate that I, "Critical-Tim," and "YouFound_Lxam" are currently debating in.
Sure, feel free to respond to this there.
#118
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
@Tarik

Firstly prove that heaven is more than a coping strategy.

Otherwise, hypothetical morals are meaningless.
#119
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@zedvictor4
In case you were looking for a response, I'm currently discussing this with Tarik in the "Morality is Objective" debate commentary. Additionally, I'm debating with YouFound_Lxam on some of the subjects discussed here, but in greater detail.
Feel free to comment your thoughts as I always appreciate another perspective.

78 days later

#120
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Is it objectively true that it is immoral for a lion to kill an innocent? Or are only humans subject to these morals?