Morality in of Itself.

Author: YouFound_Lxam

Posts

Total: 252
#91
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tarik
Why do you think God himself would be subjective, but he would make rules that are objective? I think it's possible that he treats different people different because God often judges people based on context. I noticed several points in the Bible where men make commit murder, and one is considered honorable and the other a horrific error, yet they killed the person in the exact same manner it just depended on who and why. I believe this to show that two people can do the exact same thing and one be considered morally right and the other morally wrong because it's based on something that is subjective to the individual, perhaps it is their intension.

For instance, it may be morally correct for one person to enter the Tabernacle such as the high priest where another individual is not allowed to enter the Tabernacle otherwise, they will be stricken dead by God himself. I believe this to be another example that God treats people subjectively and that morality is not an objective fact. Instead, it is different for everyone.
#92
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
I believe this to show that two people can do the exact same thing and one be considered morally right and the other morally wrong because it's based on something that is subjective to the individual, perhaps it is their intension.
Not all theists believes in the God depicted in The Bible, as for me the God I believe in is morally consistent and objective because that makes the most sense.
#93
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tarik
I suppose it is possible to believe in an objective morality as a religion, such as you described. But I don't think it aligns with commonly accepted knowledge or traditional religious texts.

Ultimately, you can believe in an objective morality, but the evidence suggests it is subjective.
#94
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
Ultimately, you can believe in an objective morality, but the evidence suggests it is subjective.
What evidence is that?
#95
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tarik
There's biblical evidence for religious people, and psychological evidence for others. Morality is based in emotion and is not consistent for all.

By no means am I saying you can't have a religious belief that morality is objective, but I am saying that all the worldly and traditional religious evidence suggests morality is subjective.
#96
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
There's biblical evidence for religious people, and psychological evidence for others.
Just because there’s different kinds of people doesn’t mean there’s different kinds of morality, those other peoples outlook on morality could just be objectively wrong.
#97
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tarik
This could be true. However, I don't see any evidence to support this. Which is why I said earlier that it would be considered a religious belief, not a credible scientific or philosophical deduction.
#98
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
Which is why I said earlier that it would be considered a religious belief, not a credible scientific or philosophical deduction.
So where’s your scientific credibility on your assessment of morality?
#99
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Critical-Tim
@Tarik

Morality is labelled sensibility and may vary between human sub-groups.

And all objectivity is essentially subjectively biased.


Hi Tim.

Tarik blocks me because?

Well , I can only assume that they find me a too logical a challenge to their conditioned sensibilities.
#100
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tarik
People have different views of morality as it varies between individuals, just as you and I have different views, which emphasizes its subjectivity. It is still possible there is an objective morality, but I am unaware of any evidence for it.
#101
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tarik
@zedvictor4
I don't see anything wrong with anyone wanting to block anyone for whatever reason. I think that people should collaborate voluntarily in order to gain a better understanding of the world. I often ask myself whether I should even say anything at all or if I should just listen, but often others want something in return for the knowledge that they share. This is why it's important to ask yourself how much you're willing to give in order to get. If you don't feel as though you could learn anything from Tarik, then it is understandable that you would not be as cautious of offending. Meanwhile, Tarik May not be willing to accept your point of view if it comes across as harsh.

It's important to recognize the goal which is to understand reality to its fullest within our abilities. this requires gaining as much experience as possible and experiencing as much of the world as we can. Other people have experienced parts of the world or even lived in the same city but entirely different lives and the experience they have gained is far different to ours. I always try to learn the person's perspective and understand that their beliefs match their circumstances and when I accompany that with my own I am able to create a theory that works for both of our experiences combined, creating a more comprehensive theory of reality. This is why I think it's very important to stay open-minded and try to work with your partner in search of understanding.

I understand sometimes discussing our beliefs of the world can become heated. I try my best to remain unbiased and unoffended so that I may learn the most I can, but sometimes it may be necessary to withdraw from communicating with someone. My personal choice with a person who Too often gets aggravated and close minded is I simply start asking questions. Once I have fully understood their beliefs then I have gained everything I can from them, and I thank them, and I depart. It is a shame they were not able to make any use of my past experience, but I can at least still make use of theirs.

I'm not telling you or him to unblock or regain communication with each other, as I wasn't there for the past experiences that led to this point. I'm just saying what has been beneficial to me, and how I would handle this sort of situation with someone in my discussions.
#102
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
It is still possible there is an objective morality, but I am unaware of any evidence for it.
If it’s possible then the other different views people have are irrelevant and emphasizes nothing, the only view that matters is the objective view.
#103
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tarik
I don't think the possibility merits its certainty. Meanwhile, the many different views point to a more theory, being probable subjective morality. I accept that there is a chance in the future we will discover an objective morality, but until then it seems to me more reasonable that the most likely explanation is morality is subjective, as for the evidence we currently have.
#104
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
I accept that there is a chance in the future we will discover an objective morality, but until then it seems to me more reasonable that the most likely explanation is morality is subjective, as for the evidence we currently have.
Define morality.
#105
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tarik
Here's the definition I found from research:
Morality refers to the principles, values, and beliefs that guide and govern an individual's or a society's sense of right and wrong behavior. It is the concept of distinguishing between actions that are considered morally acceptable or commendable and those that are seen as unethical or reprehensible.

I believe that by recognizing the different time and cultures will change how people view things as ethical or unethical, and I believe this to support the idea that moral is relative to time and culture and not consistent for all individuals, which would make it subjective. However, I have found far too many definitions to feel satisfied with just one which is why over time I have created my own and I believe it to fully encompass every definition I have come across as of yet.

Here is my definition:
Morality is what is beneficial towards an entity, in a specific metric, considering a time frame, given an aspect,
Immorality is what is harmful towards an entity, in a specific metric, considering a time frame, given an aspect.

Here are the definitions.
The metric could be in terms of health, money, happiness, or something else.
The time frame could be in the immediate present (now), the sum of morality from now till a certain point in future, or the sum of morality from now till forever.
The aspect could be considered as consequentialist (based on outcome), deontological (based on action), or a virtue ethic (based on intention), or a combination of them.
#106
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
The metric could be in terms of health, money, happiness, or something else.
Money? So billionaires that accumulated there wealth by exploiting and depriving others of there rights are doing a moral deed under your view?

“When morality comes up against profit, it is seldom that profit loses.” —Shirley Chisholm

This may appear to be true on the surface to the superficial but even the richest of the rich still have to answer to the man above, regardless of how many zeroes are in there bank account.
#107
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tarik
I believe you misunderstand. What I said was moral structure could be defined as using something such as money. An example would be it could be considered morally good to give others a certain amount of money, not claiming it. That would just be benefiting oneself, which isn't very altruistic. The point was that a moral structure has to have something to judge how good or bad an action is. I was just providing some examples.
#108
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,647
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Tarik
 still have to answer to the man above
I like fairytales too. Do you like Zeus? Or maybe Amon Ra?

I think Slifer The Sky dragon is the real God. He will destroy all other Gods and claim total victory.
#109
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Best.Korea
Please don't make fun. I'm enjoying our conversation and I would not like to end it in such a way.
#110
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Best.Korea
I like fairytales too.
Is the concept of morality also a fairytale? Do you consider yourself to be a nihilist?
#111
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
That would just be benefiting oneself, which isn't very altruistic.
I don’t believe altruism was a talking point in your original definition.

Definitions are supposed to provide clarity, not lead to more ambiguity and questions.
#112
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,647
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Tarik
Morality?

If I had to choose between

1. Me suffering
2. Others suffering

I would choose 2. The morality is really, all about me and doing myself a favor.
#113
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Best.Korea
I would choose 2. The morality is really, all about me and doing myself a favor.
Why do others have to suffer for you do to yourself a favor?
#114
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,647
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Tarik
They dont. But in any situation where its me or them.

#115
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,610
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Best.Korea

God chose number 1 too when Jesus was on the cross.
“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
#116
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Best.Korea
They dont. But in any situation where its me or them.
Then why choose to bring up such situations?
#117
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tarik
I believe some definitions are necessary to be less definitive to capture the complexity of an idea. Similarly, some definition must be more nuanced than others.

A more definite explanation I believe would lose resolution and become inaccurate.
#118
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tarik
If we define the color white as a color on a physical entity it is necessary to leave what the entity is as ambiguous since the moment we say white is the color of a box it now doesn't capture a white ball. This is an example of necessary ambiguity. Similarly, my definition of morality has what I believe to be necessary ambiguity in terms of metric, time frame, and aspect.
#119
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,647
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Tarik
You asked about my morality. I told you about it.
#120
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Critical-Tim
For sure.

I'm not the least offended by Tarik's actions.


Offence....Now there's another can of worms.