Circumcision, hip or lame? (13 Viewers)

[Martin]

I suppose that would mean that the Nazi's were morally just. They thought it was right, didn't they? They believed they were doing the world a favor.

I don't think that's what they were thinking. But yes, it does not take much for two people to think they're both being moral and yet being in conflict with each other.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[rounder]

I don't think that's what they were thinking. But yes, it does not take much for two people to think they're both being moral and yet being in conflict with each other.

Indeed, in some cases two parties may think they are both being moral thus we cannot claim who is really morally right.

In other cases, it is not the case. I don't think you have fully considered the implications behind what you said. If what you are saying is indeed true, than no act throughout human history can be deemed immoral.

I hope I am not the only one who finds this absurd.

 

[Martin]

Indeed, in some cases two parties may think they are both being moral thus we cannot claim who is really morally right.

Can't we? Why not?

In other cases, it is not the case. I don't think you have fully considered the implications behind what you said. If what you are saying is indeed true, than no act throughout human history can be deemed immoral.

I hope I am not the only one who finds this absurd.

That's a very strange thing to say. Are you telling me that if you and I took the list of all events in human history, billions and billions of them, we would agree on each one whether it was moral or not?

 

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

My penisdick has no hat.

 

[Azzurri7]

My penisdick has no hat.

 

[rounder]

That's a very strange thing to say. Are you telling me that if you and I took the list of all events in human history, billions and billions of them, we would agree on each one whether it was moral or not?

No, I am sayng that we can agree on a good number of them. Like I said, not all issues can be considered objectively moral.

 

[Martin]

No, I am sayng that we can agree on a good number of them. Like I said, not all issues can be considered objectively moral.

Huh? So some events cannot be determined either moral or immoral? I thought you said morality was objective?

 

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

My brain just exploded.

 

[rounder]

Huh? So some events cannot be determined either moral or immoral? I thought you said morality was objective?

Yes, it is. There is always an absolute right and wrong. I am suggesting that some questions of morality are debatable as neither position is absolutely moral or immoral. This just means that when you debate a subject such as slavery. an objective morality does exist and that is precisely why we opt to seek to do what is morally right.

Think about it this way, if an objective morality did not exist. Arguing for or against slavery would be pointless since neither side has merit over the other. But since an objective morality does exist, one side is rigth and the other is not.

 

[Martin]

Yes, it is. There is always an absolute right and wrong. I am suggesting that some questions of morality are debatable as neither position is absolutely moral or immoral. This just means that when you debate a subject such as slavery. an objective morality does exist and that is precisely why we opt to seek to do what is morally right.

These two statements contradict each other.

 

[rounder]

These two statements contradict each other.

My bad.

Allow me to rephrase. When you debate about whether slavery should be permitted or not, either position is trying to seem like the more moral position than the other. Since this is indeed possible, an objective morality does exist.

 

[Martin]

My bad.

Allow me to rephrase. When you debate about whether slavery should be permitted or not, either position is trying to seem like the more moral position than the other. Since this is indeed possible, an objective morality does exist.

Say what? But which one is the moral one then?

 

[rounder]

Say what? But which one is the moral one then?

Permitting slavery? It would definitely be the second option. Like I said, sacrificing human dignity and fundamental human rights for the prosperity of wealth and comfort is absolutely immoral.

 

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

I think you're talking out of your ear.

 

[Martin]

That's a very strange thing to say. Are you telling me that if you and I took the list of all events in human history, billions and billions of them, we would agree on each one whether it was moral or not?

No, I am sayng that we can agree on a good number of them. Like I said, not all issues can be considered objectively moral.

I want to return to this because I never understood your conclusion.

 

[rounder]

I want to return to this because I never understood your conclusion.

Again, bad rhetoric on my part. I should have explained myself better.

An objective morality exists for every subject.

However, we do not have to agree on that objective morality meaning it is not necassary that one of our opinions is objectively correct. We may have differing opinions that are both immoral yet we believe them to be moral, the fact will remain that an objective moral truth does exist.

You said out of all the issues in history? Yes? Since I considered that many issues could have up to 10 or even 20 conclusions, there is no reason to assume that my or your conclusion is the morally correct one. We may both be wrong, but there is an objectve moral truth to each of these questions, yes, if that's what you were asking.

 

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

What do you mean by objective morality?

Do you mean the right fucking thing to do?

 

[rounder]

What do you mean by objective morality?

Do you mean the right fucking thing to do?

I mean the right fucking thing to do regardless of personal opinion.

 

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

Ohh, well that makes a lot more sense, why didn't you say that in the first place?

 

[Martin]

Again, bad rhetoric on my part. I should have explained myself better.

An objective morality exists for every subject.

However, we do not have to agree on that objective morality meaning it is not necassary that one of our opinions is objectively correct. We may have differing opinions that are both immoral yet we believe them to be moral, the fact will remain that an objective moral truth does exist.

You said out of all the issues in history? Yes? Since I considered that many issues could have up to 10 or even 20 conclusions, there is no reason to assume that my or your conclusion is the morally correct one. We may both be wrong, but there is an objectve moral truth to each of these questions, yes, if that's what you were asking.

But how is it objective if we cannot agree on it?

This is what objective means:

not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=objective&db=*

So if we know the facts of a certain event in history, how do we determine if the event was moral without being "influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice"?