A Thought Experiment (1 Viewer)

[Martin]

You just said it, you believe that "moral judgement is deduced from the current status of the outside world". I don't.

In a moral discussion where you believe in moral relativism. You cannot establish that i'm wrong.

Suppose I claim morality is objective. And then I say incest is not immoral. Then what? What have we achieved?

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Dinsdale]

Well ya. But thats another story for another day.


You just said it, you believe that "moral judgement is deduced from the current status of the outside world". I don't.

In a moral discussion where you believe in moral relativism. You cannot establish that i'm wrong.

No, because in the end everyone judges personally what he or she thinks is moral/immoral.

But I can establish you that basing your moral judgement on emotional arguments can have extremely negative consequences. Like hatred and intolerance towards gay people for instance.

OK = Okay = Alright = Acceptable = Tolerable

Is that clear enough? please analyse rationally before you respond

If you use the word 'OK', you make it seem like the ones having no problem with it would also do it.

If mother and son would enjoy having intercourse in that situation, then I wouldn't mind and let them have their way. But that doesn't stop me from finding it an extremely unappealing thought.

 

[Bjerknes]

Yup. Cannot believe these people sometimes. They have no problem with someone fucking his sister/mother, but a woman wearing a piece of cloth on her head, that's just unacceptable

In my opinion, it is unacceptable. There's no reason for a woman to wear those things. No reason at all.

If He wanted women to cover themselves up, He would have made them ugly.


Regarding fucking your mother or sister, hey, if it's consensual, go for it, chief.

 

[rounder]

But the main idea is another attempt of Juve Rev to show that objective moral judgement exists.

My main point was to show that rational thought is not what defines morality, far from it. And I remember being asked by Martin to define precise rules that can identify anything as being objectively moral or immoral. I couldn't answer him because such a formula does not really exist in reality, it's not that simple. Rational explanations for morality cannot exist because of the complexity of any given situation. Although many theories have attempted this including the Hedonist Calculus, no theory has ever come short of flaws.

I was attempting to show that most people depend on their moral intuition to deem actions as right or wrong. Not many people will analzye the moral question and follow a rational basis before giving an answer.

I did not neccesarily make any point about objective morality here per se but this example makes a good case for it.

 

[Fred]

In my opinion, it is unacceptable. There's no reason for a woman to wear those things. No reason at all.

If He wanted women to cover themselves up, He would have made them ugly.


Regarding fucking your mother or sister, hey, if it's consensual, go for it, chief.

The keyword being: your opinion.

 

[rounder]

Suppose I claim morality is objective. And then I say incest is not immoral. Then what? What have we achieved?

We don't have to achieve anything. What? You want a cookie or something?

 

[Bjerknes]

The keyword being: your opinion.

Unlike Muhammed's opinion.

 

[Dinsdale]

My main point was to show that rational thought is not what defines morality, far from it. And I remember being asked by Martin to define precise rules that can identify anything as being objectively moral or immoral. I couldn't answer him because such a formula does not really exist in reality, it's not that simple. Rational explanations for morality cannot exist because of the complexity of any given situation. Although many theories have attempted this including the Hedonist Calculus, no theory has ever come short of flaws.

I was attempting to show that most people depend on their moral intuition to deem actions as right or wrong. Not many people will analzye the moral question and follow a rational basis before giving an answer.

I did not neccesarily make any point about objective morality here per se but this example makes a good case for it.

There are some people that do though, and if everyone did it the world would be a better place.

 

[Fred]

Unlike Muhammed's opinion.

Muhammed as in me?

Well then ya, i thought that was obvious

 

[Bjerknes]

Nah the other guy.

 

[Fred]

There are some people that do though, and if everyone did it the world would be a better place.

Well would it. Since we established that fucking one's mom is acceptable from a moral perspective, i doubt the world would be a better place.

 

[Martin]

My main point was to show that rational thought is not what defines morality, far from it. And I remember being asked by Martin to define precise rules that can identify anything as being objectively moral or immoral. I couldn't answer him because such a formula does not really exist in reality, it's not that simple. Rational explanations for morality cannot exist because of the complexity of any given situation. Although many theories have attempted this including the Hedonist Calculus, no theory has ever come short of flaws.

I was attempting to show that most people depend on their moral intuition to deem actions as right or wrong. Not many people will analzye the moral question and follow a rational basis before giving an answer.

I did not neccesarily make any point about objective morality here per se but this example makes a good case for it.

People are not used to thinking about morality as something that can be analyzed rationally. That doesn't mean it cannot.

 

[rounder]

There are some people that do though, and if everyone did it the world would be a better place.

Basing moral judgements on intuitions are not as detrimental as you think. Who's to say that our very intuition is not more reliable than our concious mind in making moral decisions? Afterall, what we conciously do or think is merely a product of enviormental, evolutionary and perhaps genetic factors. There is absolutely no reason to think that the world would indeed be a better place if we all relied on rational thought to base our moral judgements.

 

[rounder]

People are not used to thinking about morality as something that can be analyzed rationally. That doesn't mean it cannot.

I believe it can. I don't believe it should.

 

[Martin]

Basing moral judgements on intuitions are not as detrimental as you think. Who's to say that our very intuition is not more reliable than our concious mind? Afterall, what we conciously do or think is merely a product of enviormental, evolutionary and perhaps genetic factors. There is absolutely no reason to think that the world would indeed be a better place if we all relied on rational thought to base our moral judgements.

So is intuition.

 

[Martin]

I believe it can. I don't believe it should.

So how do you reconcile moral conflicts? One person says "this is immoral", the other says "this is not immoral and I should be able to do it", what do you do about it? Whose intuition should we base our judgment on? The first person? The second? Or mine, the observer's?

 

[rounder]

So is intuition.

I know, so why is it more reliable to rely on our conciousness to make a moral decision?

 

[Dinsdale]

Well would it.

Absolutely.

Since we established that fucking one's mom is acceptable from a moral perspective, i doubt the world would be a better place.

Not that particular case because incest isn't common. Homosexuality on the other hand is, for instance.

 

[Byrone]

Hey if any of you have hot female relatives hook me up with their details so i can fuck them & make sure you dont.

 

[Martin]

I know, so why is it more reliable to rely on our conciousness to make a moral decision?

Because rational analysis is something we can discuss. "This is wrong because of X". And another person says "no, you're making a mistake" and we can eventually reach a consensus, if we can agree to set aside our personal taste and focus on what is objectively true. If we rely on our instincts alone there is no discussion and no consensus possible.