A Thought Experiment (6 Viewers)

[rounder]

Okay, so we agree fully on this principle (I can't remember the last time that happened). But here is the thing. In physics it is obvious to me that there is some final truth. Things must be this way or that way, the particles must be here or there, we are dealing with the physical world. In the end, for the competent observer with the correct equipment, the observation can only have one outcome.

But in morality, how can you claim that objective morality exists? Based on what? It's not a physical reality as in physics. There is nothing to observe. It's a philosophical proposition.

Well, it's a philosophical proposition based on human behavior. Take the causality theory for example, it is a philosophical proposition based on physical observations yet it does not lack any objective truth at all.

The fact that morality in general is more to do with philosophy rather than a tangible reality like physics does not at all imply that morality lacks objectivity. Perhaps it is not as easilly identifiable as that of a mathematical or physics equation, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Martin]

Well, it's a philosophical proposition based on human behavior. Take the causality theory for example, it is a philosophical proposition based on physical observations yet it does not lack any objective truth at all.

This is incorrect. Moral truth is not observationally equivalent to physical truth. This is precisely what makes it different. Observing human behavior tells you nothing about this "objective morality". Human behavior is not moral. And even when it does conform with objective morality there is no way of knowing that it does.

In contrast, physical laws always hold. When they are found incorrect, new laws are developed that must correctly explain all cases.

It's very different to observe a realm where all interactions obey a set of laws, and then trying to infer those laws, than to observe a realm where a set of laws are supposed to be obeyed, but often are not. From that you cannot infer what the laws are.

 

[Seven]

In most cases they are.

I don't know man. I was talking to two muslim friends of mine just yesterday about the entire hijab debate that's going on in Antwerp right now and they think a lot of women are pressured into wearing them. They prefer girls to wear them too, but they think there's too much pressure on them. It could be the migration background too IMO. Migration sometimes leads to extremism.

 

[Azzurri7]

I don't know man. I was talking to two muslim friends of mine just yesterday about the entire hijab debate that's going on in Antwerp right now and they think a lot of women are pressured into wearing them. They prefer girls to wear them too, but they think there's too much pressure on them. It could be the migration background too IMO. Migration sometimes leads to extremism.

That's true. There's indeed too much pressure on them. Girls deciding to wear Hijab themselves because they're convinced[are VERY rare].

It's in humans nature, everyone likes to show his beauty side, even if she's no Angelina Jolie or Marilyn Monroe, but again, there are few, very few girls convinced with the Hijab thing and were/aren't under pressure.

 

[Zé Tahir]

Have you taken a survey Rab? If you said "the girls I know" then ok but you're making a general statement.

I have a gigantic family of which 97% or so wear hijab and none of them do so because they feel forced to do it.

 

[Alen]

but you're making a general statement.

He did. So did Fred when he said that most of them do.

I agree with Rab though, but only if we talk about Bosnia, Albania, Turkey and Hoori
I can't claim anything about the rest, although i have my theory that you don't like.

 

[Dinsdale]

That's a logically fallacious statement.

If you and I argued about the solution to a physics problem, does this automatically mean there is no absolute answer to this problem? The fact that some question may arise a dispute or an argument does not at all suggest that this question does not have an answer.

The fact that the sound waves exist independantly of our perceptions is what I'm aiming at here. An objective moral standard exists independantly of how we choose to interpret morality. We may argue about what we hear and what we believe to be moral but this does not exclude the reality of a sound or an objective morality existing nonetheless.

There are major differences between physical laws and morality, that show why postulating absolute (meaning they hold up at any time and place) physical laws makes sense, and postulating absolute morality doesn't.

-Physical laws predict reality very accurately and unambiguously, which allows us to explain phenomenons. We can't choose whether we obey a physical law. Your morality theory doesn't have that deterministic character at all.

-And because of this accurate and deterministic character, physical laws are falsifiable. If we observe something that doesn't agree with a postulated physical law, we reject the law and try to find a better one. And every time we observe a new event that agrees with the physical law, that law gets corroborated.

-There are major indications that there indeed is one absolute physical law, that can describe everything at both the microscopic and macroscopic level at the same time. We haven't found it yet, but every time we unify two different theories into one, describing both phenomenons with one bigger law, we're getting closer and closer.

 

[Seven]

Have you taken a survey Rab? If you said "the girls I know" then ok but you're making a general statement.

I have a gigantic family of which 97% or so wear hijab and none of them do so because they feel forced to do it.

The problem is how you define pressure. I'm just saying that I know muslims who have no problem with admitting that there are indeed a lot of girls who are pressured into wearing a veil. And those muslims actually want them to weir a veil, so they have no agenda.

 

[Dinsdale]

There will always be peer pressure, we can't avoid that. But pressure forcing someone to do something that he/she really doesn't want to is something different. If have no idea how Muslim society works, so I can't tell what kind of pressure there is.

 

[Azzurri7]

Have you taken a survey Rab? If you said "the girls I know" then ok but you're making a general statement.

I have a gigantic family of which 97% or so wear hijab and none of them do so because they feel forced to do it.

I had to do several project 2years ago, one of them was about Hijab. I've watched too many documentaries, from Gulf countries, Jordan, Iran and some of the women that were interviewed where even from Pakistan and Turkey. Too many girls are forced to wear my friend, for sure more than the ones that are convinced, this one I can assure you.

Muslims are hundreds of millions around the world, there's no doubt you'll always find families that are convinced themselves that wearing Hijab is good for them like your family and many others. That no one can deny.

But take into consideration the tradition some Muslim countries have and you'll know what I'm pointing at. You can't convince me that majority of the Muslim women around the world are totally convinced about this.

 

[Azzurri7]

The problem is how you define pressure. I'm just saying that I know muslims who have no problem with admitting that there are indeed a lot of girls who are pressured into wearing a veil. And those muslims actually want them to weir a veil, so they have no agenda.

There's no such a thing as defining pressure, Andries... There are two ways and only two, 1- Either she's forced to wear it because that's what tradition/community/family want it to be or 2- She's free to make her own decision.

 

[rounder]

This is incorrect. Moral truth is not observationally equivalent to physical truth. This is precisely what makes it different. Observing human behavior tells you nothing about this "objective morality". Human behavior is not moral. And even when it does conform with objective morality there is no way of knowing that it does.

In contrast, physical laws always hold. When they are found incorrect, new laws are developed that must correctly explain all cases.

It's very different to observe a realm where all interactions obey a set of laws, and then trying to infer those laws, than to observe a realm where a set of laws are supposed to be obeyed, but often are not. From that you cannot infer what the laws are.

There are major differences between physical laws and morality, that show why postulating absolute (meaning they hold up at any time and place) physical laws makes sense, and postulating absolute morality doesn't.
-Physical laws predict reality very accurately and unambiguously, which allows us to explain phenomenons. We can't choose whether we obey a physical law. Your morality theory doesn't have that deterministic character at all.

-And because of this accurate and deterministic character, physical laws are falsifiable. If we observe something that doesn't agree with a postulated physical law, we reject the law and try to find a better one. And every time we observe a new event that agrees with the physical law, that law gets corroborated.

-There are major indications that there indeed is one absolute physical law, that can describe everything at both the microscopic and macroscopic level at the same time. We haven't found it yet, but every time we unify two different theories into one, describing both phenomenons with one bigger law, we're getting closer and closer.

I disagree. Torturing a new born child for pleasure is fundamentally and absolutely immoral. Time and place are irrelevant, just as with absolute physical laws, some actions are indeed absolutely moral or immoral. These existent moralistic truths that hold regardless of society, time, or individual are enough to postulate an objective morality.

The fact that at least some moral principles do hold absolutely is sufficient to conclude that objective morality exists. Unless you believe that at some point, it would have been moral to rape children or torture babies, you should feel the same way.

 

[Martin]

Self contradiction.

[/discussion]

 

[Dinsdale]

I disagree. Torturing a new born child for pleasure is fundamentally and absolutely immoral. Time and place are irrelevant, just as with absolute physical laws, some actions are indeed absolutely moral or immoral. These existent moralistic truths that hold regardless of society, time, or individual are enough to postulate an objective morality.

The fact that at least some moral principles do hold absolutely is sufficient to conclude that objective morality exists. Unless you believe that at some point, it would have been moral to rape children or torture babies, you should feel the same way.

That's because we can't think of a possible realistic situation where raping children doesn't harm society. Aren't you trying to defend a morality originating outside of the human mind?

 

[KB824]

A brother and his sister, Kyle and Betty, decided to go on a road trip together. One day while staying in a hotel, they decided to make love to each other, they used birth control pills and condoms just to be safe. They thoroughly enjoyed it and never had any regrets.

After that night, they decided not to tell anyone about what had happened and this little secret of theirs even brought them closer together. Now, here's my question, do you think what Kyle and Betty did was moral? And why or why not?

Let me guess.


Your name is Kyle

 

[Zé Tahir]

He did. So did Fred when he said that most of them do.

I agree with Rab though, but only if we talk about Bosnia, Albania, Turkey and Hoori
I can't claim anything about the rest, although i have my theory that you don't like.

Actually the question was directed at Rab, because I know he's normal. You know everything already, the Almighty Hoori is your yard stick

I had to do several project 2years ago, one of them was about Hijab. I've watched too many documentaries, from Gulf countries, Jordan, Iran and some of the women that were interviewed where even from Pakistan and Turkey. Too many girls are forced to wear my friend, for sure more than the ones that are convinced, this one I can assure you.

Muslims are hundreds of millions around the world, there's no doubt you'll always find families that are convinced themselves that wearing Hijab is good for them like your family and many others. That no one can deny.

But take into consideration the tradition some Muslim countries have and you'll know what I'm pointing at. You can't convince me that majority of the Muslim women around the world are totally convinced about this.

I know there are girls who are pressured to do it Rab but a documentary like that is hardly objective.

Anyway, PM me homie.

 

[Byrone]

So why do you americans fuck latino's & make them call you daddy or pappi?

 

[KB824]

So why do you americans fuck latino's & make them call you daddy or pappi?

Because it sounds extremely hot when its coming from a fine Latina woman, that's why

 

[Bjerknes]

I wish I could have a hot sister to fuck like Juve Revolution.

 

[Byrone]

Because it sounds extremely hot when its coming from a fine Latina woman, that's why

I know but im pretty sure Burke has other reasons for doing that.