Not true. There is a way to see if existence is objectively real: end your existence.
If you do something that should make you cease to exist and nothing happens, then existence is a subjective illusion since you broke it's laws, and if you do cease to exist then it is proof existence is objectively real.
Since you insist, what are the laws of existence?
You're travelling into a whole new slew of philosopical paradox, what happens after the cessation of existence.
I would like to weigh in and state that just because morality is not objective doesn't mean it's not important. To believe otherwise would be Moral Relativism, and down that way lies madness.
Since you insist, what are the laws of existence?
You're travelling into a whole new slew of philosopical paradox, what happens after the cessation of existence.
Well, the law in question would be "You will cease to exist if this happens".
So let's for example say you step out into the vacuum of space without a pressurized suit or an air supply, the laws of the universe state that you will die. So if you do, they are true. But if you don't, then by breaking that law you potentially throw all the others into question.
As for what comes after, I know better than to get into an afterlife discussion on the Internet so will not answer.
I would like to weigh in and state that just because morality is not objective doesn't mean it's not important. To believe otherwise would be Moral Relativism, and down that way lies madness.
Nor would I insist that to be the case, I simply wanted to state that the idea of absoute good or absolute evil is a fallacy. THAT was the entire point of this tangent. Moral relativism is the reality, not a moral system in itself. Moral systems are designed to compensate for that void, an artificial construct to apply order to a chaotic system.
Nor would I insist that to be the case, I simply wanted to state that the idea of absoute good or absolute evil is a fallacy. THAT was the entire point of this tangent. Moral relativism is the reality, not a moral system in itself. Moral systems are designed to compensate for that void, an artificial construct to apply order to a chaotic system.
To which I still say is bulls*** and you have yet to prove otherwise.
I would like to weigh in and state that just because morality is not objective doesn't mean it's not important. To believe otherwise would be Moral Relativism, and down that way lies madness.
Aaaand madness is subjective. Moral relativism is a stance plenty people practice, and it is no less valid than having ''objective'' morals.
To which I still say is bulls*** and you have yet to prove otherwise.
But we did. Different people have different morals = morals are relative.
To which I still say is bulls*** and you have yet to prove otherwise.
If a logical progression of thought isn't proof enough for you, then I have no interest in struggling to convince you. Regardless what I say, you will say it is invalid. Enjoy your (debatable) existence.
Morals are a social construct, and exist entirely in our own heads. Though to paraphrase an old man, that's doesn't mean they aren't real. Morals are also relative, differing based on your culture and other variables.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't have them, hold them, and adjust them from time to time. Morality is the foundation of all human society, and without it, we are nothing.
Morals are a social construct, and exist entirely in our own heads. Though to paraphrase an old man, that's doesn't mean they aren't real. Morals are also relative, differing based on your culture and other variables.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't have them, hold them, and adjust them from time to time. Morality is the foundation of all human society, and without it, we are nothing.
Again, I'm not refuting this in the least. Morality is a necessary concept in any social structure. I'm merely pointing out that the binary fallacy of absolute good and evil is an overly simple, immature, and potentially dangerous concept.
If a logical progression of thought isn't proof enough for you, then I have no interest in struggling to convince you. Regardless what I say, you will say it is invalid. Enjoy your (debatable) existence.
I asked for you to objectively prove the scenario I gave as not being objectively bad, but you either danced around it or used subjective hypotheticals. If you can prove it is not objectively bad for the victim, I will cede to your point.
You can do it in a PM if you prefer to not derail anymore.
Aaaand madness is subjective. Moral relativism is a stance plenty people practice, and it is no less valid than having ''objective'' morals.
Very subjective, but I would nevertheless disagree. Moral relativism, in my experience, is exclusively assholes being assholes while not feeling guilty about it. It is used only to "justify" moral wrongdoings. You never see a moral relativist give money to charity, and then say that since morality is relative, they're probably screwing someone over somewhere and it wasn't a good act.
If you can prove it is not objectively bad for the victim
It is objectively bad for the victim. But it is not objectively bad.
It is objectively bad for the victim. But it is not objectively bad.
If it is objectively bad for someone, then by definition it is objectively bad period.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't have them, hold them, and adjust them from time to time. Morality is the foundation of all human society, and without it, we are nothing.
You don't have to say that something is wrong to dislike it, or say it's right to like it. That's the problem I have with morality.
If it is objectively bad for someone, then by definition it is objectively bad period.
No, that's not how it works.
I have a prawn allergy = prawns are objectively bad. Oh wait..
I consider all religion to be bad = all religion is objectively bad. Oh wait..
Oh hey how about this next guy here that thinks that not believing in a deity is bad? = atheism is objectively bad right?
This thread is still going?
... alrighty then. * finds a good seat and some popcorn to watch the fireworks *
You don't have to say that something is wrong to dislike it, or say it's right to like it. That's the problem I have with morality.
I think you're confusing preference with morality.
Your favorite color and whether you like western movies is a matter of preference. Killing someone is morality.
Guest_Puddi III_*
I thought this thread was about Tetsuo's love for Tevinter, what's this about moral relativism?
I think you're confusing preference with morality.
Your favorite color and whether you like western movies is a matter of preference. Killing someone is morality.
Preference is morality, there is no confusion. You have particular preferences ( not dying is a preference ) so you build laws around those. If you don't give a damn about who likes which colors then it's not morality, if you want to include some laws about liking some particular colors it becomes morality. I just say - treat everything like preference for the color.
I thought this thread was about Tetsuo's love for Tevinter, what's this about moral relativism?
No idea. Probably started with someone trying to defend all the evil crap Tevinter does.
I thought this thread was about Tetsuo's love for Tevinter, what's this about moral relativism?
Because some people think Tevinter isn't bad since something being bad is subjective according to them.
No idea. Probably started with someone trying to defend all the evil crap Tevinter does.
Correct.
Guest_Puddi III_*
No idea. Probably started with someone trying to defend all the evil crap Tevinter does.
I doubt Tetsuo really gives a crap about all that though. He's like an ultra-abomination already. 
Retour en haut
