Circumcision, hip or lame? (17 Viewers)

[rounder]

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

This is what objective means:

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"?

Because to determine whether or not an event is objectively moral or not, you do not need to be influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice.

Consider my 'torturing a new-born baby for pleasure' as an example. To do such a thing is wrong, we do not need personal feelings or interpretations to conclude this, it is quite 'simply' wrong to torture a new born baby no matter how you look at it. Hence, objectively wrong. Just as how it is objectively wrong to kill millions of Jews, just how it is objectively wrong to degrade people because of the color of their skin.

In all these examples personal feelings, interpretations, and prejudice are especially irrelevant. It does matter how I feel about racism, it is downright and plain wrong, I can't put it much simpler than that.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Martin]

Because to determine whether or not an event is objectively moral or not, you do not need to be influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice.

Consider my 'torturing a new-born baby for pleasure' as an example. To do such a thing is wrong, we do not need personal feelings or interpretations to conclude this, it is quite 'simply' wrong to torture a new born baby no matter how you look at it. Hence, objectively wrong. Just as how it is objectively wrong to kill millions of Jews, just how it is objectively wrong to degrade people because of the color of their skin.

In all these examples personal feelings, interpretations, and prejudice are especially irrelevant. It does matter how I feel about racism, it is downright and plain wrong, I can't put it much simpler than that.

lol you are deluding yourself. What makes you say that it is wrong? I'll tell you what. Your feelings. Your own instinct of morality. You consider a question like racism, ask the question to yourself, and the answer comes back. It's immoral. Who's telling you this? Your feelings.

 

[Martin]

But anyway, if there is objective morality and in some particular case we cannot agree on what it is, how do we discover it?

 

[rounder]

lol you are deluding yourself. What makes you say that it is wrong? I'll tell you what. Your feelings. Your own instinct of morality. You consider a question like racism, ask the question to yourself, and the answer comes back. It's immoral. Who's telling you this? Your feelings.

Can it not be rationality rather than feelings? It's ratonally unfair and unreasonable to degrade people because of their skin color. I do not need to feel anything. My feelings are only a state of mind, they do not tell me what is moral and what isn't.

But anyway, if there is objective morality and in some particular case we cannot agree on what it is, how do we discover it?

We don't have to, the point is it exists. I have already pointed out to why it exists.

 

[Martin]

We don't have to, the point is it exists. I have already pointed out to why it exists.

What do you mean we don't have to? What is it worth if we can't discover it? If say Israel and Palestine are both claiming to be morally just and you say "there is objective morality, but we don't have to discover what it is", then how do we decide what to do about the conflict?

 

[rounder]

If there had to be an objectve way of discovering what is moral, I suppose we would have to consider what a utopian society would be like and try to mirror this image through condemning any actions that conflict with a utopian world, terrorism, racism etc... and promote actions that support a utopian world, love etc..

 

[Hist]

2 Points, the first regarding circumcision and the second regarding the objective moral law.
1) I am surprised that no one noticed that Time is fundamental here. When Jesus Moses and Mohammad preached about their religions, None of them had soap, two of them where definitely living in the fucking desert as well as their followers and i am not sure about the 3rd. but all 3 of them definitely didn't shower everyday with soap, lotion or shampoo and so its natural given the wide effect that those 3 had on the world that a hell lot of people did as they say and it was right to cut it off as probably back then people didn't even wipe their asses after they shit. It became a habit passed down generation after generation and may have lost most of its hygienic relevance as we can avoid its negative effects.
Further, Parents do have the right to exercise control on their kids until you are like 16 or 18 years old or some shit. They choose your school, your nursery, the values that they pass down to you.. everything they nurture you and unless your parents are robots, will have a huge effect on your personality. However, as a grown you may choose to continue on what they taught you or turn away... obviously circumcision cant be reversed but i doubt that it has any effect on you.

There are harmful traditions (teaching religion isn't one of them) there also neutral and there is definitely neutral. Like it or not your parents shape you because you are human and they are too. Being raised in a big vessel or a tube until you are grown then you start choosing for yourself every aspect of your character is not practical. People with shit parents who chose a lot of stuff for him that he now rejects may want this...but that is just how it is.

2) The objective moral law you claim exists is obviously not self evident or else we wouldn't be having this conversation. So please tell me how do you come to know about this objective moral law without subjectivity as you obviously subjectively believe that an objective moral law exists. we are having the same problem with god's existence; a claim that an objective truth exists on no grounds but subjective ideas/feeling/opinion. And please tell me if this objective moral law exists, can we attain knowledge of it, and if yes then what precisely does it say?


3) we signed diego so i am fuking HAAAAAAAAAPPPPPPPPPPPPYYYYYYY!!!!!!!

 

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

Moral is a societal standard, dude. It's like law, it's what the society defines as standards they all should live by.

 

[rounder]

What do you mean we don't have to? What is it worth if we can't discover it? If say Israel and Palestine are both claiming to be morally just and you say "there is objective morality, but we don't have to discover what it is", then how do we decide what to do about the conflict?

We decide who is being more immoral. We consider what a perfect country should be acting in such a stituation, when this country, say Israel, does not act accordingly to the most suitable manner(promoting peace between the two nations) then we may say that Israel are acting immorally.

 

[Raz]

3) we signed diego so i am fuking HAAAAAAAAAPPPPPPPPPPPPYYYYYYY!!!!!!!

Its time to edit your avatar then?

 

[rounder]

Moral is a societal standard, dude. It's like law, it's what the society defines as standards they all should live by.

Right but that's just the problem. Nazi Germany defined morality in their own way and their people lived according to it. Now, who was more moral, those who sympathized with Jews and took in Jewish families, fed them and his them from the Nazi's? Or those who did nothing and agreed with their government and were perfectly fine with letting the Jews being thrown into concentration camps?

If you believe it was the first choice then you do believe what I'm talking about. There is an absolute morality, in this case, it does not matter what society implemented on the family, they behaved morally, they did what was right.

 

[Martin]

We decide who is being more immoral. We consider what a perfect country should be acting in such a stituation, when this country, say Israel, does not act accordingly to the most suitable manner(promoting peace between the two nations) then we may say that Israel are acting immorally.

Okay, let me put it this way. If there is this objective morality of yours, is it discoverable by us? If yes, how? If not, how does it help us?

 

[Raz]

Okay, let me put it this way. If there is this objective morality of yours, is it discoverable by us? If yes, how? If not, how does it help us?

 

[Seven]

I don't like the idea. The unimaginable pain they put the newborn through is just not right in my opinion. Since it is not imperative, I don't see why it should be done. Hygene is not a good reason, I shower every day, I don't need to cut my foreskin to be clean.

The pain is not unimaginable.

You just said it yourself. It's immoral to go around calling poeple, "niggers". Thus since your opinion does not matter, it is going to be wrong anyway. Objective morality does indeed exist.

No, it doesn't.

 

[rounder]

Okay, let me put it this way. If there is this objective morality of yours, is it discoverable by us? If yes, how? If not, how does it help us?

It is discoverable, yes, but it's discovery is not imperative. I don't have to know the objective moral truth of every problem despite the fact that it does exist. If we are having a dispute and we both claim to know what is morally right, there are three possibilities.

1) I am objectively right.
2) You are objectively right.
3) None of us are objectively right. However, there is an objective truth.

How does it help us if we don't discover it? It doesn't, but once we do it does a huge favor for humanity. We know that torturing a new-born child is objectively wrong, thus it is inexcusable for any person to commit such an obscene act even if he thinks it is okay.

We know that child labor is objectively wrong for instance, thus the UN has has every right to enter whatever country is using child labor legally according to their own standards and issue heavy punishments to that country. If Morality was relative, The UN would not be able to stop INdonesia from Child labour for example because if what you say is true, they are doing nothing wrong.

 

[Seven]

Those aren't the three possibilities FFS.

You're just hopeless. Why the fuck would you not look up what objective means?

The UN IMPOSE their moral standard.

 

[Martin]

It is discoverable, yes, but it's discovery is not imperative. I don't have to know the objective moral truth of every problem despite the fact that it does exist. If we are having a dispute and we both claim to know what is morally right, there are three possibilities.

1) I am objectively right.
2) You are objectively right.
3) None of us are objectively right. However, there is an objective truth.

So how do we find out which one is correct?

How does it help us if we don't discover it? It doesn't, but once we do it does a huge favor for humanity. We know that torturing a new-born child is objectively wrong, thus it is inexcusable for any person to commit such an obscene act even if he thinks it is okay.

We know that child labor is objectively wrong for instance, thus the UN has has every right to enter whatever country is using child labor legally according to their own standards and issue heavy punishments to that country. If Morality was relative, The UN would not be able to stop INdonesia from Child labour for example because if what you say is true, they are doing nothing wrong.

How? How did we discover this? And how do we know that our conclusion was correct?

 

[Martin]

If you remember, objectivity is about facts. So what are the facts that say child labor is wrong? What are the facts that say children are more important than cheap products? Show me these facts.

 

[Seven]

If you remember, objectivity is about facts. So what are the facts that say child labor is wrong? What are the facts that say children are more important than cheap products? Show me these facts.

This is insane. After days and days of explaining it to him, the man still has no idea what objective means.

 

[rounder]

Those aren't the three possibilities FFS.

You're just hopeless. Why the fuck would you not look up what objective means?

The UN IMPOSE their moral standard.

What right do they have to impose their moral standard if it wasn't the right one? How can they intervene in another country's business, why is their moral standard better than Indonesia's?

If you remember, objectivity is about facts. So what are the facts that say child labor is wrong? What are the facts that say children are more important than cheap products? Show me these facts.

They are humans, humans are more valuable than cheap products.