283 réponses à ce sujet

[cruc1al]

Dethateer wrote...

Morality is purely subjective. Let's take you and Hitler for example: you both want what's best for the world, but you see everyone as equal human beings, he didn't, he tried to make the world better by killing those he deemed inferior so that mankind would end up made of stronger individuals. You might try to make the world better by convincing everyone to get along. Both are perfectly valid points of view, only yours is evil in his view, his is evil in yours.

And you're convinced that Hitler thought he was doing the right thing based on what?

[Dethateer]

Based on the fact that everyone does what they think is right.

[Sadja]

cruc1al wrote...

Our sense of morality has roots in our genes, though genes don't of course completely determine how we think. Our brain is where our sense of morality originates, and our brain is the product of both genes and the environment (as always).

What you're saying is that morality is separate from truth. How's that? The smarter you are, the better you are at grasping the truth, and given your free will, the more capable you are of making choices that rest on reality. I think "good" and "evil", though extreme and somewhat subjective terms, are tightly connected to truth.

Wat?



I did not say anything about morality. Morality is subjective, never objective. Though thanks for the reply anyway, as I'd like to ask how you come to the conclusion that "morality" has roots in our genes. Our genese do not tell us what is right, or what is wrong. Our genes would only tell us to survive, to prevail. HOW we do that, how we go about it, is where our intellect comes in. And this intellect is what puts us apart from the rest of creation, what gives us the ability to be either compassionate or cruel.

So unless you are saying that we are all pre-programmed by our genes which ones of the two outweight the other, then I'm struggling to understand how you've come to reply to my post on that matter.

Though again: Morality is not objective. It is not bred into us, it is what the society conceives.

And thus I'll go on-topic: The Reapers have a different outlook on things. Just as the cattle might ask itself why we, the enlightened pinacle of creation, would treat it with such cruelty even though we could go about it differently... humanity might ask itself the same about the Reapers.

[Tirigon]

William Adama wrote...

The wiser the person, the more peaceful they become.

No.

The more intelligent a species is the better will the weapons be they build.

That´s why human progress hasn´t led to worldwide peace and freedom but to nuclear weapons and world wars.

[Tirigon]

Dethateer wrote...

Morality is purely subjective. Let's take you and Hitler for example: you both want what's best for the world, but you see everyone as equal human beings, he didn't, he tried to make the world better by killing those he deemed inferior so that mankind would end up made of stronger individuals. You might try to make the world better by convincing everyone to get along. Both are perfectly valid points of view, only yours is evil in his view, his is evil in yours.

To the bolded: NO!

Killing "inferior" people is not a "valid point of view", it´s stupid and cruel and people who want hat should be imprisoned in a N@zi death camp like Auschwitz themselves. Let´s see if they still think so afterwards.

[Sadja]

Tirigon wrote...


To the bolded: NO!

Killing "inferior" people is not a "valid point of view", it´s stupid and cruel and people who want hat should be imprisoned in a N@zi death camp like Auschwitz themselves. Let´s see if they still think so afterwards.

That's just you proving the point that morality is subjective, never objective. Just because you (or the rest of the world) hangs onto one end of the morality stick, doesn't mean other don't believe the exact opposite. Cruel. Yes. Evil. Yes. Shocking. Yes. True? Sadly.

[kraze07]

Tirigon wrote...

William Adama wrote...

The wiser the person, the more peaceful they become.

No.

The more intelligent a species is the better will the weapons be they build.

That´s why human progress hasn´t led to worldwide peace and freedom but to nuclear weapons and world wars.

Wisdom and Intelligence are two different things. Haven't you played Neverwinter Nights?

[GodWood]

EDIT: Actually, I think I'll post a more productive repsonse.
Join the Serious Debate and Discussion Group and post your thread there, your much more likely to get some good responses.

Modifié par GodWood, 14 mai 2010 - 09:34 .

[FlyingWalrus]

Reapers just want their milkshakes.

Also, I think the logical fallacy that comes into play during the "morality is subjective" argument is that people only look at what certain ethical systems consider unjust. What about things like charity? Giving a hungry man a loaf of bread isn't considered evil in any morality that I can think of.

There is a certain level in which morality is all the same. Comparing human morality to that of the Reapers is lolworthy at best because that's like comparing human morality to spider morality.

Modifié par FlyingWalrus, 14 mai 2010 - 09:51 .

[Wildecker]

Once again from a possible Reaper point of view:
Any civilization driven enough to leave its homeworld and start conquering the galaxy will eventually find itself in control of the entire galaxy and run out of further goals, because the next galaxy is just too far away to reach. Then it will turn on itself for lack of other challenges and destroy itself, and very probably every other culture worth mentioning that has developed in the galaxy - if they even survived the dominant races' conquest phase.
So the Reapers appear just in time to assimilate the dominant race at its zenith, conserve their glory and remove them from the picture. They clear the stage for the next show, withdraw and wait who will be the next rise to dominance.

Does that make sense? From a point of view that does not involve short-lived individuals, I think it does.

Modifié par Wildecker, 14 mai 2010 - 09:33 .

[Tirigon]

Sadja wrote...

That's just you proving the point that morality is subjective, never objective. Just because you (or the rest of the world) hangs onto one end of the morality stick, doesn't mean other don't believe the exact opposite. Cruel. Yes. Evil. Yes. Shocking. Yes. True? Sadly.

No, because good and evil aren´t subjective. If anyone thinks killing others because of race, religion, sexuality or whatever is ok he / she is an ass, and that´s an objective fact.

[Sadja]

Tirigon wrote...


No, because good and evil aren´t subjective. If anyone thinks killing others because of race, religion, sexuality or whatever is ok he / she is an ass, and that´s an objective fact.

That makes you naive. Or very young. Your objective fact, is your subjective opinion.

It is evil, yes, (from where you and I stand) but it is potentially not evil to the man or woman that is commiting the crime. You might think a woman evil for murdering her ailing child, but she believes she just saved her family by removing a mouth to feed which would have been nothing but a burden.

You might think it evil to have conquered the Northern American continent, but the settlers back then thought it necessary. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Just because you and I can't follow the train of thought of another people, doesn't mean their subjective point of view doesn't exist.


All that's very OT though. As another poster pointed out.. comparing the Reapers (fictional as they are) with human morality is quite pointless. Though at the end of the day their "reasoning" were most likely (not saying its a fact) inspired by some human outlook on things. We, as a human race, are a wonderful source of inspiraton for everything dark and nasty.

[Tirigon]

Sadja wrote...

Tirigon wrote...


No, because good and evil aren´t subjective. If anyone thinks killing others because of race, religion, sexuality or whatever is ok he / she is an ass, and that´s an objective fact.

That makes you naive. Or very young. Your objective fact, is your subjective opinion.

Probably. But it is the wiser opinion that should be an objective fact for everyone as it would make the world a better place.

At the point humanity is atm I wouldn´t mind the Reapers cleaning up for a new - hopefully better - race to evolve.

[Sadja]

And we all know that the world will never be a better place as long as humanity is milling about.



My own, subjective, opinion.

[Aryck the One]

Reapers are not intellectual superiors, only technological ones. They are basically running on animal instinct, the need to survive, which requires that they harvest organic races to acquire the resources necessary to reproduce, so that they can keep living. Simple as that.

[cruc1al]

Sadja wrote...

cruc1al wrote...

Our sense of morality has roots in our genes, though genes don't of course completely determine how we think. Our brain is where our sense of morality originates, and our brain is the product of both genes and the environment (as always).

What you're saying is that morality is separate from truth. How's that? The smarter you are, the better you are at grasping the truth, and given your free will, the more capable you are of making choices that rest on reality. I think "good" and "evil", though extreme and somewhat subjective terms, are tightly connected to truth.

Wat?



I did not say anything about morality. Morality is subjective, never
objective.

You said, quote: "While we do get a sense of right and wrong (which is something we're
being taught by society)". You did say something about morality. Morality = sense of right and wrong. I contested the claim it is only something taught by society.

Though thanks for the reply anyway, as I'd like to ask how you come to the conclusion that "morality" has roots in our genes.

For example http://en.wikipedia....ion_of_morality.

Our genese do not tell us what is right, or what is wrong. Our genes would only tell us to survive, to prevail. HOW we do that, how we go about it, is where our intellect comes in. And this intellect is what puts us apart from the rest of creation, what gives us the ability to be either compassionate or cruel.

Creation? You serious?

You say our genes only tell us to survive... Yes. And reproduce. But as a social species, our survival and reproduction is inherently tied to how we perceive others, how we cooperate with them, how we punish those who don't, how we take advantage of others, et cetera; each of those, I'd say, has genetic components. For example, incest is perceived as immoral and repulsive because having sex with someone so closely related to you is likely to produce degenerate offspring due to genetic anomalies, lowering the long-term reproductive success of those who have incest. Thus, people who have incest are less likely to remain in the population, in the long run. That's natural selection.

So unless you are saying that we are all pre-programmed by our genes which ones of the two outweight the other, then I'm struggling to understand how you've come to reply to my post on that matter.

Genes don't make us machines. There is some level of programming involved, but the brain is admittedly very, very malleable. A lot depends on the environment you grow in. Nevertheless, genes have their influence, and it is incorrect to disregard genes as influencing our sense of morality.

Though again: Morality is not objective. It is not bred into us, it is what the society conceives.

It is not just what is bred into us, nor is it just what the society teaches us. It's both.

And thus I'll go on-topic: The Reapers have a different outlook on things. Just as the cattle might ask itself why we, the enlightened pinacle of creation, would treat it with such cruelty even though we could go about it differently... humanity might ask itself the same about the Reapers.

Again, you assume that morality is independent of truth. Reapers are smarter than humans, thus they're more likely to discover what is objectively, scientifically true. That allows them to make fairer and more informed moral decisions; the more you know about what the consequences of your actions will be, the better you can predict whether your actions are right in the first place. It may well be the reapers, being a lot smarter than us, are morally right, and we're morally wrong, simply because they know more than we do. Granted, they may intentionally be using truth for their own selfish purposes and not in order to make the right choices, but nevertheless, their higher intelligence grants them better tools to make right decisions.

[cruc1al]

Sadja wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

No, because good and evil aren´t subjective. If anyone thinks killing others because of race, religion, sexuality or whatever is ok he / she is an ass, and that´s an objective fact.

That makes you naive. Or very young. Your objective fact, is your subjective opinion.

It is evil, yes, (from where you and I stand) but it is potentially not evil to the man or woman that is commiting the crime. You might think a woman evil for murdering her ailing child, but she believes she just saved her family by removing a mouth to feed which would have been nothing but a burden.

Believing you're doing the right thing does not equate to doing the right thing. If you have to believe, you're missing facts. With objective facts and a scientifically valid world view, you're more likely to make informed decisions. Thus, you're less likely to make morally bad decisions. Just because settlers a few centuries back thought it was a good idea to go over to North America and start killing people, doesn't mean they did the right thing. There are a lot of things they didn't know, and if they had known them, they wouldn't have made the same decisions.

[DC86]

Long story short: your morality comes from your set of beliefs, your surroundings.

[Sadja]

cruc1al wrote...

You said, quote: "While we do get a sense of right and wrong (which is something we're
being taught by society)". You did say something about morality. Morality = sense of right and wrong. I contested the claim it is only something taught by society.

Touche. However I still can't agree on your saying that "morality" is anchored (or evolved) by our genes. What's in those genes is not to make us decide whether we are right or wrong (good or evil) but to survive.

Survival is not subjected to good or evil, but only to being the one ontop and not the one walked over. Survival does not teach us to live in harmony. Survival teaches us to make sure your nation, your group, your family, has the resources and not your neighbour. That when push comes to shove, its YOU first. Them later.

Now lets look at your incest example. Yes. You consider it amoral. The rest of the straight thinking world might consider it amoral. But a whole lot of folks consider it perfectly fine.

So, Imma' thinking (from my point of view) you're not talking Morality. You're talking Darwins Law here. Or, well, Common Sense. I like common sense. Other people don't. Other people think banging up their sister is a good idea. They don't think its amoral. Their subjective view differs.

Morality is a human creation. Morality is in our heads. Survival, now that's different. The ME, the I. That's natural, that's in your genes (as you said yourself). How we go about that is decided by what road we pick--and we, being human, thus being able to have an opinion, free will, the choice, are able to be cruel. Not cause we need to, but because we want to. Because we can, and because we know we can get away with it.

Creation? You serious?

That was not a religious statement there. I just didn't find a better word for, well, us and the rest of the planets population.

Did I forget anything?
Not sure.
Are you going to agree with me?
I hope not. 'cause then I'd have been objective, and morality is subjective, so I'd be proving myself wrong if I was able to make an objective point.

Excuse me. I should step away from the computer and allow my head to explode.

[cruc1al]

Sadja wrote...

Survival is not subjected to good or evil, but only to being the one ontop and not the one walked over. Survival does not teach us to live in harmony. Survival teaches us to make sure your nation, your group, your family, has the resources and not your neighbour. That when push comes to shove, its YOU first. Them later.

I don't understand what you're even trying to argue here. As I said, as a social species, there are genes that influence whether doing something to another person is thought to be morally right or wrong. It's inevitable, otherwise we wouldn't be a social species.

Now lets look at your incest example. Yes. You consider it amoral. The rest of the straight thinking world might consider it amoral. But a whole lot of folks consider it perfectly fine.

Exactly where did I say I consider incest amoral? 

Why is it that 99% consider it wrong, and 1% consider it right? Because the culture tells us it's wrong, or because the 1% is an environmental anomaly, while the 99% are thinking exactly what their genes "predicted"?

So, Imma' thinking (from my point of view) you're not talking Morality. You're talking Darwins Law here. Or, well, Common Sense. I like common sense. Other people don't. Other people think banging up their sister is a good idea. They don't think its amoral. Their subjective view differs.

Darwin's Law? You mean natural selection, right? Yes. I'm saying natural selection has an influence on what we consider right and wrong. I'm not saying natural selection dictates what is right and wrong, I'm saying it influences what we think is right and wrong. Therefore, we don't get all of our sense of morality from the culture, regardless of whether morality is subjective or not. That's another matter.

Morality is a human creation. Morality is in our heads. Survival, now that's different. The ME, the I. That's natural, that's in your genes (as you said yourself). How we go about that is decided by what road we pick--and we, being human, thus being able to have an opinion, free will, the choice, are able to be cruel. Not cause we need to, but because we want to. Because we can, and because we know we can get away with it.

How is any of this relevant? You obviously don't understand the point that our genes, by means of organising the development of our body and the brain with it, influence what we think.

Modifié par cruc1al, 14 mai 2010 - 11:36 .

[Sadja]

Man.



You really believe, truly believe, that morality is tied in with genetics. That opinions were developed by our evolution as a species? The only thing that sets us apart from the animal kingdom is that we are -not- bound to our instincts, which evidently you seem to say we are.



I didn't really realize it was that severe, I shall just leave.







Next time someone blows themselves skyhigh to a make a point, I'll know why at least. Wasn't his fault, he was just genetically flawed.

[Tirigon]

cruc1al wrote...

Now lets look at your incest example. Yes. You consider it amoral. The rest of the straight thinking world might consider it amoral. But a whole lot of folks consider it perfectly fine.

Exactly where did I say I consider incest amoral? 

Why is it that 99% consider it wrong, and 1% consider it right? Because the culture tells us it's wrong, or because the 1% is an environmental anomaly, while the 99% are thinking exactly what their genes "predicted"?

That is a VERY BAD example.

After all, 100 years ago homosexuality was punishable by death; now it´s ok because most people (except a few asses) have understood that sexuality is a private matter. Who´s to say the common view on incest is not to change in the same way?

Atm, most people consider incest to be wrong because they have old-fashioned views and live in an old-fashioned society, not beause their genes are opposed to sex with relatives. They´re not.