Lotion Soronnar wrote...
What evidence?
Thinking differentely about moraltiy doesn't mean it is different.
objective/universeal/true morality does not mean that everyone must agree on it. It means that there is only one truth, regardless if anyone recognizes it or not.
Guest_Luc0s_*
Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Luc0s wrote...
Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Luc0s wrote..
Morality is subjective.
Depends whom you ask.
I know there are people who believe that morality is objective, but the evidence points towards the contrary. Morality is subjective.
What evidence?
Thinking differentely about moraltiy doesn't mean it is different.
objective/universeal/true morality does not mean that everyone must agree on it. It means that there is only one truth, regardless if anyone recognizes it or not.
Modifié par Luc0s, 10 janvier 2012 - 09:07 .
Modifié par Medhia Nox, 10 janvier 2012 - 09:37 .
Guest_Luc0s_*
Modifié par Luc0s, 10 janvier 2012 - 10:30 .
Guest_Luc0s_*
Medhia Nox wrote...
Take it this way, if I killed a thousand fathers... would a thousand sons believe I had done something wrong? How about a million? How about "the vast majority" - ((leaving room for the mentally derange and those sons who hate their fathers) )
Modifié par Luc0s, 10 janvier 2012 - 10:47 .
You can at the core reduce morality to 'Do not do to others what you don't want to be done to you.' In basic, you don't want to be murdered, etc. It is so basic that is is not subjective. It's the same for everyone. Unless someone has a death wish, or is suicidal but that is due to special circumstances.wright1978 wrote...
Lotion Soronnar wrote...
What evidence?
Thinking differentely about moraltiy doesn't mean it is different.
objective/universeal/true morality does not mean that everyone must agree on it. It means that there is only one truth, regardless if anyone recognizes it or not.
It scares me that you believe that.
Guest_Luc0s_*
AlexXIV wrote...
You can at the core reduce morality to 'Do not do to others what you don't want to be done to you.' In basic, you don't want to be murdered, etc. It is so basic that is is not subjective. It's the same for everyone. Unless someone has a death wish, or is suicidal but that is due to special circumstances.wright1978 wrote...
Lotion Soronnar wrote...
What evidence?
Thinking differentely about moraltiy doesn't mean it is different.
objective/universeal/true morality does not mean that everyone must agree on it. It means that there is only one truth, regardless if anyone recognizes it or not.
It scares me that you believe that.
Why people say it is subjective and others say it is objective is simply because it is both considering the circumstances. There are black/white areas and there are grey areas. As I said black/white would be murder. Grey area would be cheating. Because 99.9 percent of the people you'd ask on the street or anywhere would say that murder is wrong. Not because they were told so, they know it. Because it is as good as an absolute. Not talking about killing, but murder. There is a difference. Killing may be necessary in some cases.
Grey area would be lying or cheating. Because most people would say that they lied or cheated at some point and that there may be good reasons for it. The true paragon does not always make the right call. I can imagine they make renegade choices for some reason. But they should 'know' then that what they did was wrong and regret it. It's not about not making mistakes. It is about knowing right from wrong.
Modifié par Luc0s, 10 janvier 2012 - 11:01 .
If it's subjective you only need to give me one example for when murder is morally acceptable. If you can name any example or any culture that thinks that murder is morally acceptable I am convinced that it is subjective. But I don't want to hear of ritual killings, duels or killing for revenge. Murder is cold blooded malicious selfish killing without real need.Luc0s wrote...
Nice opinion you have there.
You do realize that all of this is subjective right? Your entire post is a collection of your subjective ideas on morality. None of this is factually objective.
Murdering is just as "grey" as cheating is. At least that's how I see it. Of course my ideas on morality are also merely subjective, like everyone's ideas are.
Objective morality does not exist.
Modifié par AlexXIV, 10 janvier 2012 - 11:05 .
KotorEffect3 wrote...
Not all renegades are pro-cerberus it is just that there is a small but rabid cult of cerberus loyalists on the bsn
Luc0s wrote...
AlexXIV wrote...
You can at the core reduce morality to 'Do not do to others what you don't want to be done to you.' In basic, you don't want to be murdered, etc. It is so basic that is is not subjective. It's the same for everyone. Unless someone has a death wish, or is suicidal but that is due to special circumstances.wright1978 wrote...
Lotion Soronnar wrote...
What evidence?
Thinking differentely about moraltiy doesn't mean it is different.
objective/universeal/true morality does not mean that everyone must agree on it. It means that there is only one truth, regardless if anyone recognizes it or not.
It scares me that you believe that.
Why people say it is subjective and others say it is objective is simply because it is both considering the circumstances. There are black/white areas and there are grey areas. As I said black/white would be murder. Grey area would be cheating. Because 99.9 percent of the people you'd ask on the street or anywhere would say that murder is wrong. Not because they were told so, they know it. Because it is as good as an absolute. Not talking about killing, but murder. There is a difference. Killing may be necessary in some cases.
Grey area would be lying or cheating. Because most people would say that they lied or cheated at some point and that there may be good reasons for it. The true paragon does not always make the right call. I can imagine they make renegade choices for some reason. But they should 'know' then that what they did was wrong and regret it. It's not about not making mistakes. It is about knowing right from wrong.
Nice opinion you have there.
You do realize that all of this is subjective right? Your entire post is a collection of your subjective ideas on morality. None of this is factually objective.
Murdering is just as "grey" as cheating is. At least that's how I see it. Of course my ideas on morality are also merely subjective, like everyone's ideas are.
Knowing right from wrong is impossible. You can think 'X' is right while I can think 'X' is wrong and that's perfectly fine. We can both have our own view on what is right and what is wrong, because morality is subjective.
Objective morality does not exist.
AlexXIV wrote...
You can at the core reduce morality to 'Do not do to others what you don't want to be done to you.' In basic, you don't want to be murdered, etc. It is so basic that is is not subjective. It's the same for everyone. Unless someone has a death wish, or is suicidal but that is due to special circumstances.wright1978 wrote...
Lotion Soronnar wrote...
What evidence?
Thinking differentely about moraltiy doesn't mean it is different.
objective/universeal/true morality does not mean that everyone must agree on it. It means that there is only one truth, regardless if anyone recognizes it or not.
It scares me that you believe that.
Why people say it is subjective and others say it is objective is simply because it is both considering the circumstances. There are black/white areas and there are grey areas. As I said black/white would be murder. Grey area would be cheating. Because 99.9 percent of the people you'd ask on the street or anywhere would say that murder is wrong. Not because they were told so, they know it. Because it is as good as an absolute. Not talking about killing, but murder. There is a difference. Killing may be necessary in some cases.
Grey area would be lying or cheating. Because most people would say that they lied or cheated at some point and that there may be good reasons for it. The true paragon does not always make the right call. I can imagine they make renegade choices for some reason. But they should 'know' then that what they did was wrong and regret it. It's not about not making mistakes. It is about knowing right from wrong.
Modifié par wright1978, 10 janvier 2012 - 11:17 .
Honor killings serve a purpose. Murder is for me if you kill your uncle because you want to inherit his money, for example. If there is war, or someone is a criminal or you are in a blood feud it is something different because if people actually find an excuse why killing is justified then they already admit that the murder as such would not be justified without the additional justification.wright1978 wrote...
AlexXIV wrote...
You can at the core reduce morality to 'Do not do to others what you don't want to be done to you.' In basic, you don't want to be murdered, etc. It is so basic that is is not subjective. It's the same for everyone. Unless someone has a death wish, or is suicidal but that is due to special circumstances.wright1978 wrote...
Lotion Soronnar wrote...
What evidence?
Thinking differentely about moraltiy doesn't mean it is different.
objective/universeal/true morality does not mean that everyone must agree on it. It means that there is only one truth, regardless if anyone recognizes it or not.
It scares me that you believe that.
Why people say it is subjective and others say it is objective is simply because it is both considering the circumstances. There are black/white areas and there are grey areas. As I said black/white would be murder. Grey area would be cheating. Because 99.9 percent of the people you'd ask on the street or anywhere would say that murder is wrong. Not because they were told so, they know it. Because it is as good as an absolute. Not talking about killing, but murder. There is a difference. Killing may be necessary in some cases.
Grey area would be lying or cheating. Because most people would say that they lied or cheated at some point and that there may be good reasons for it. The true paragon does not always make the right call. I can imagine they make renegade choices for some reason. But they should 'know' then that what they did was wrong and regret it. It's not about not making mistakes. It is about knowing right from wrong.
Murder is a cultural more, part of the norms that binds a society together. However in other cultures things like Honor killings are much more acceptable than they are in the west. As environmental and cultural factors change so do those norms. In the past sex outside marriage was considered deeply immoral, now in the west the general society in the west doesn't.
Guest_Luc0s_*
AgitatedLemon wrote...
Luc0s wrote...
AlexXIV wrote...
You can at the core reduce morality to 'Do not do to others what you don't want to be done to you.' In basic, you don't want to be murdered, etc. It is so basic that is is not subjective. It's the same for everyone. Unless someone has a death wish, or is suicidal but that is due to special circumstances.wright1978 wrote...
Lotion Soronnar wrote...
What evidence?
Thinking differentely about moraltiy doesn't mean it is different.
objective/universeal/true morality does not mean that everyone must agree on it. It means that there is only one truth, regardless if anyone recognizes it or not.
It scares me that you believe that.
Why people say it is subjective and others say it is objective is simply because it is both considering the circumstances. There are black/white areas and there are grey areas. As I said black/white would be murder. Grey area would be cheating. Because 99.9 percent of the people you'd ask on the street or anywhere would say that murder is wrong. Not because they were told so, they know it. Because it is as good as an absolute. Not talking about killing, but murder. There is a difference. Killing may be necessary in some cases.
Grey area would be lying or cheating. Because most people would say that they lied or cheated at some point and that there may be good reasons for it. The true paragon does not always make the right call. I can imagine they make renegade choices for some reason. But they should 'know' then that what they did was wrong and regret it. It's not about not making mistakes. It is about knowing right from wrong.
Nice opinion you have there.
You do realize that all of this is subjective right? Your entire post is a collection of your subjective ideas on morality. None of this is factually objective.
Murdering is just as "grey" as cheating is. At least that's how I see it. Of course my ideas on morality are also merely subjective, like everyone's ideas are.
Knowing right from wrong is impossible. You can think 'X' is right while I can think 'X' is wrong and that's perfectly fine. We can both have our own view on what is right and what is wrong, because morality is subjective.
Objective morality does not exist.
Murder is almost universally seen as wrong.
Killing (That isn't murder) on the other hand is fine, so long as it's justified. Killing soldiers in battle, assassinating a corrupt poilitician, etc.
I think neither is murder.Luc0s wrote...
There is no difference between murder and killing. Killing = murder. Especially assassinations are murder.
Why would assassinating a politician not be counted as murder, while killing my corrupt neighbor would be?
Guest_Luc0s_*
AlexXIV wrote...
Honor killings serve a purpose. Murder is for me if you kill your uncle because you want to inherit his money, for example.
AlexXIV wrote...
If there is war, or someone is a criminal or you are in a blood feud it is something different because if people actually find an excuse why killing is justified then they already admit that the murder as such would not be justified without the additional justification.
Modifié par Luc0s, 10 janvier 2012 - 11:25 .
Luc0s wrote...
AgitatedLemon wrote...
Luc0s wrote...
AlexXIV wrote...
You can at the core reduce morality to 'Do not do to others what you don't want to be done to you.' In basic, you don't want to be murdered, etc. It is so basic that is is not subjective. It's the same for everyone. Unless someone has a death wish, or is suicidal but that is due to special circumstances.wright1978 wrote...
Lotion Soronnar wrote...
What evidence?
Thinking differentely about moraltiy doesn't mean it is different.
objective/universeal/true morality does not mean that everyone must agree on it. It means that there is only one truth, regardless if anyone recognizes it or not.
It scares me that you believe that.
Why people say it is subjective and others say it is objective is simply because it is both considering the circumstances. There are black/white areas and there are grey areas. As I said black/white would be murder. Grey area would be cheating. Because 99.9 percent of the people you'd ask on the street or anywhere would say that murder is wrong. Not because they were told so, they know it. Because it is as good as an absolute. Not talking about killing, but murder. There is a difference. Killing may be necessary in some cases.
Grey area would be lying or cheating. Because most people would say that they lied or cheated at some point and that there may be good reasons for it. The true paragon does not always make the right call. I can imagine they make renegade choices for some reason. But they should 'know' then that what they did was wrong and regret it. It's not about not making mistakes. It is about knowing right from wrong.
Nice opinion you have there.
You do realize that all of this is subjective right? Your entire post is a collection of your subjective ideas on morality. None of this is factually objective.
Murdering is just as "grey" as cheating is. At least that's how I see it. Of course my ideas on morality are also merely subjective, like everyone's ideas are.
Knowing right from wrong is impossible. You can think 'X' is right while I can think 'X' is wrong and that's perfectly fine. We can both have our own view on what is right and what is wrong, because morality is subjective.
Objective morality does not exist.
Murder is almost universally seen as wrong.
Killing (That isn't murder) on the other hand is fine, so long as it's justified. Killing soldiers in battle, assassinating a corrupt poilitician, etc.
There is no difference between murder and killing. Killing = murder. Especially assassinations are murder.
Why would assassinating a politician not be counted as murder, while killing my corrupt neighbor would be?
Assasinations are a subset of murder. No matter how evil someone is, at least in the US, or supposedly, everyone is entitled to a trial. War is basically a semi-legal version of genocide. The only possible time I could see killing someone justified is if they are trying to kill you. You are protecting yourself from death.Luc0s wrote...
AgitatedLemon wrote...
Luc0s wrote...
AlexXIV wrote...
You can at the core reduce morality to 'Do not do to others what you don't want to be done to you.' In basic, you don't want to be murdered, etc. It is so basic that is is not subjective. It's the same for everyone. Unless someone has a death wish, or is suicidal but that is due to special circumstances.wright1978 wrote...
Lotion Soronnar wrote...
What evidence?
Thinking differentely about moraltiy doesn't mean it is different.
objective/universeal/true morality does not mean that everyone must agree on it. It means that there is only one truth, regardless if anyone recognizes it or not.
It scares me that you believe that.
Why people say it is subjective and others say it is objective is simply because it is both considering the circumstances. There are black/white areas and there are grey areas. As I said black/white would be murder. Grey area would be cheating. Because 99.9 percent of the people you'd ask on the street or anywhere would say that murder is wrong. Not because they were told so, they know it. Because it is as good as an absolute. Not talking about killing, but murder. There is a difference. Killing may be necessary in some cases.
Grey area would be lying or cheating. Because most people would say that they lied or cheated at some point and that there may be good reasons for it. The true paragon does not always make the right call. I can imagine they make renegade choices for some reason. But they should 'know' then that what they did was wrong and regret it. It's not about not making mistakes. It is about knowing right from wrong.
Nice opinion you have there.
You do realize that all of this is subjective right? Your entire post is a collection of your subjective ideas on morality. None of this is factually objective.
Murdering is just as "grey" as cheating is. At least that's how I see it. Of course my ideas on morality are also merely subjective, like everyone's ideas are.
Knowing right from wrong is impossible. You can think 'X' is right while I can think 'X' is wrong and that's perfectly fine. We can both have our own view on what is right and what is wrong, because morality is subjective.
Objective morality does not exist.
Murder is almost universally seen as wrong.
Killing (That isn't murder) on the other hand is fine, so long as it's justified. Killing soldiers in battle, assassinating a corrupt poilitician, etc.
There is no difference between murder and killing. Killing = murder. Especially assassinations are murder.
Why would assassinating a politician not be counted as murder, while killing my corrupt neighbor would be?
Guest_Luc0s_*
AlexXIV wrote...
I think neither is murder.Luc0s wrote...
There is no difference between murder and killing. Killing = murder. Especially assassinations are murder.
Why would assassinating a politician not be counted as murder, while killing my corrupt neighbor would be?
Assassination is not necessarily murder. It can be. Depends on who assassinates who for what reason. Same with your corrupt neighbor. For example we kill to live. Without killing animals or plants we would die. It is not the same as killing someone for example out of greed, for money. Not only the deed it is imporant, also the reason for the deed. Actually in moral questions the reason can be more imporant than the deed.
Guest_Luc0s_*
Firesteel7 wrote...
Assasinations are a subset of murder. No matter how evil someone is, at least in the US, or supposedly, everyone is entitled to a trial. War is basically a semi-legal version of genocide. The only possible time I could see killing someone justified is if they are trying to kill you. You are protecting yourself from death.
Murder is a subset of killing. Murder exists due to society saying you cannot randomly kill people. If there was no law against killing your neighbor, then if you kill him, it is not murder, as there is no law saying "Don't kill other people."
Even if the victim of the murder/assasination was universally despised by everyone, the murderer/assasine must be punished for breaking the law. Society frowns upon vigilanies, no matter how just they may seem, as they are murderers in society's eyes.
There may always be an excuse, but not always a valid excuse. If you kill your father to inherit his money there is no more reason than you wanting something. It is greed. If you kill your father to inherit his money because he cheated you then there is some sort of justice in it. It's not all about greed. Whether people can find excuses is not the question. The question is what their reasons are. The question is not if murder is morally acceptable. The question is if it is murder, or, for example manslaughter/homicide. You probably think it is the same, most laws I know don't think so.Luc0s wrote...
AlexXIV wrote...
Honor killings serve a purpose. Murder is for me if you kill your uncle because you want to inherit his money, for example.
You're wrong. In both cases the murder serves a purpose.
In a honor killing, the murder serves a purpose. The purpose is regaining honor.
Killing my uncle for money serves a purpose. The purpose is getting money.AlexXIV wrote...
If there is war, or someone is a criminal or you are in a blood feud it is something different because if people actually find an excuse why killing is justified then they already admit that the murder as such would not be justified without the additional justification.
There is always an excuse. Every single criminal, serial-killer and mass-murderer always has an excuse. There is always a justification. However, not all justifications are always accepted.
What justification is or isn't accepted depends on the society you live in. It's different in each society. It's subjective.
Guest_Luc0s_*
AgitatedLemon wrote...
Your neighbor isn't going to rally thousands of troops for a martial takeover, now is he?
I agree about the animals. I am not a vegatarian because I am too weak. But I know that what you do is right and what I do is wrong. Eating meat, that is.Luc0s wrote...
AlexXIV wrote...
I think neither is murder.Luc0s wrote...
There is no difference between murder and killing. Killing = murder. Especially assassinations are murder.
Why would assassinating a politician not be counted as murder, while killing my corrupt neighbor would be?
Assassination is not necessarily murder. It can be. Depends on who assassinates who for what reason. Same with your corrupt neighbor. For example we kill to live. Without killing animals or plants we would die. It is not the same as killing someone for example out of greed, for money. Not only the deed it is imporant, also the reason for the deed. Actually in moral questions the reason can be more imporant than the deed.
I agree that the reason is more important than the deed, but...
do you realize that not everyone has the same idea of which reasons are acceptable and which aren't?
Not everyone shares the same viewpoint on when killing is acceptable and when it isn't.
For example, I find the cruel way how animals are threated and eventually slaughtered just so we can have our meat on our plate every evening not acceptable. That's why I'm a vegetarian. My moral viewpoint on this matter is probably different from yours (unless you're also a vegetarian).
You probably think mass-slaughtering tens of thousands of millions of animals each single day to satisfy our craving for meat is justified, I find it horrible and sickening.
Guest_Luc0s_*
AlexXIV wrote...
There may always be an excuse, but not always a valid excuse. If you kill your father to inherit his money there is no more reason than you wanting something. It is greed. If you kill your father to inherit his money because he cheated you then there is some sort of justice in it. It's not all about greed. Whether people can find excuses is not the question. The question is what their reasons are. The question is not if murder is morally acceptable. The question is if it is murder, or, for example manslaughter/homicide. You probably think it is the same, most laws I know don't think so.
Modifié par Luc0s, 10 janvier 2012 - 11:43 .
Retour en haut