366 réponses à ce sujet

[Palidane]

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. 

Now you're confusing morality, laws, and preference. I get your point about how morals become laws, just not where preferences factor. The problem with your endstate is that you are forced to defend every conceivable action a person could take, no matter how despicable. By that logic murder is just as valid a reaction to being cut in line as doing nothing. It's all the same right? Morality is a myth!

 

God, I think I threw up a little in my mouth there.

[KainD]

Now you're confusing morality, laws, and preference. I get your point about how morals become laws, just not where preferences factor. The problem with your endstate is that you are forced to defend every conceivable action a person could take, no matter how despicable. By that logic murder is just as valid a reaction to being cut in line as doing nothing. It's all the same right? Morality is a myth!

 

God, I think I threw up a little in my mouth there.

 

I'm not confusing anything. I just want hypocrisy out of the way. Let's say that I were to put a person in jail for murder of my close relative. I wouldn't tell them that they have done something wrong, instead I would tell them that I didn't like what they have done. The person is just basically facing consequences for their actions because I have power due to a lot of people around me not liking that particular action as well. 

[Palidane]

I'm not confusing anything. I just want hypocrisy out of the way. Let's say that I were to put a person in jail for murder of my close relative. I wouldn't tell them that they have done something wrong, instead I would tell them that I didn't like what they have done. 

That's not justice, that's revenge. You haven't told us why he murdered your relative. Maybe he deserved to die.

 

I don't get your point. How does morality=hypocrisy?

[BronzTrooper]

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.

 

Personally, I have no problem with killing.  I just see it as a fact of life.

 

The difference is, I don't necessarily like it, but I don't see it as being evil.  I mean, a soldier killing another soldier in combat is fine, but a person killing another person in a city is considered murder.  And yet, there's the death penalty, which is essentially legalized murder, not to mention the Stand Your Ground law here in Florida.  It's the main reason why I think that the 'sanctity of life' is a load of BS.

 

Morality differs from person to person.  It exists for us humans, yes, but who are we to say that it's a universal truth when the furthest any human has gone is the moon?  Honestly, stuff like this isn't going to be resolved any time soon, if at all.  People should just learn to accept it.

[Periculo]

Alright, before I get dragged in, my final post is this: Morality is a subjective perception, typically influenced by the standing social majority. Actions in and of themselves possess no inherent moral standing, it is the perspective of the parties involved, based on the context of the event, that determine the morality of an action, NOT the action itself. This does not discount the importance of a moral system within a social construct, if anything, the fact of moral relativism highlights the necessity of a moral system to sustain order within the construct. To imply the existence of absolutes on any gradient is fallacy. There is no black or white, just differing opinions on acceptable gray.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Alright, before I get dragged in, my final post is this: Morality is a subjective perception, typically influenced by the standing social majority. Actions in and of themselves possess no inherent moral standing, it is the perspective of the parties involved, based on the context of the event, that determine the morality of an action, NOT the action itself. This does not discount the importance of a moral system within a social construct, if anything, the fact of moral relativism highlights the necessity of a moral system to sustain order within the construct. To imply the existence of absolutes on any gradient is fallacy. There is no black or white, just differing opinions on acceptable gray.

Doesn't that mean that you saying all absolutes are fallacies is a fallacy since that is an absolute? 

 

(Figured I'd end on a light-hearted note)

[Master Warder Z_]

Doesn't that mean that you saying all absolutes are fallacies is a fallacy since that is an absolute? 

 

Clever.

[Periculo]

All of existence is a beautiful paradox. The simple fact that that paradox sustains is enough.

[Palidane]

Personally, I have no problem with killing.  I just see it as a fact of life.

 

The difference is, I don't necessarily like it, but I don't see it as being evil.  I mean, a soldier killing another soldier in combat is fine, but a person killing another person in a city is considered murder.  And yet, there's the death penalty, which is essentially legalized murder, not to mention the Stand Your Ground law here in Florida.  It's the main reason why I think that the 'sanctity of life' is a load of BS.

 

Morality differs from person to person.  It exists for us humans, yes, but who are we to say that it's a universal truth when the furthest any human has gone is the moon?  Honestly, stuff like this isn't going to be resolved any time soon, if at all.  People should just learn to accept it.

Which goes right back to "Oh, you like murdering dozens of people for zero reason? That's fine, it's all the same!" Bleh.

 

Killing an enemy soldier in combat is war, kill of be killed. It's fair game there. I would argue the same of Stand Your Ground laws, at least in theory. And we, as humans, have decided to grant the Government the ability to make moral judgments. The problem with a random guy killing someone is that he has no objectivity. See Kain's relative example above. Maybe your brother was a total douche and deserved to die, but you loved him, so you go off and kill his killer. That's shortsighted, subjective revenge. In America at least, we have a court system with judges and juries to mete out justice, which is much more objective.

[KainD]

That's not justice, that's revenge. You haven't told us why he murdered your relative. Maybe he deserved to die.

 

I don't get your point. How does morality=hypocrisy?

 

Revenge and justice are the same. It doesn't matter why in the least.

 

Because no action is better than any other, and we all do different actions, yet some people consider themselves better than others because they do certain actions. 

[KainD]

Which goes right back to "Oh, you like murdering dozens of people for zero reason? That's fine, it's all the same!" Bleh.

 

Nobody ever does anything without a reason. War is everywhere, whether you are a soldier or not. 

[Palidane]

Revenge and justice are the same. It doesn't matter why in the least.

 

Because no action is better than any other, and we all do different actions, yet some people consider themselves better than others because they do certain actions. 

No action is better than any other? Seriously? So, murder, rape, theft, arson, and extortion are all the same as giving to charity, helping the poor, breaking up fights, and being open-minded?

 

See, this is why I hate arguing with moral relativists. It's like trying to explain sunlight to a blind man. I don't get how some people don't realize that other people have the right to exist.

[KainD]

No action is better than any other? Seriously? So, murder, rape, theft, arson, and extortion are all the same as giving to charity, helping the poor, breaking up fights, and being open-minded?

 

See, this is why I hate arguing with moral relativists. It's like trying to explain sunlight to a blind man. I don't get how some people don't realize that other people have the right to exist.

 

It all boils down to what you want it life, everyone has a different path. Nobody has any objective rights, nobody deserves anything, people just are. You like giving to charity? Good for you, just don't get on a high horse thinking you are a better being than the serial killer next to you, because you are not, you are just different, we all are. 

[Palidane]

It all boils down to what you want it life, everyone has a different path. Nobody has any objective rights, nobody deserves anything, people just are. You like giving to charity? Good for you, just don't get on a high horse thinking you are a better being than the serial killer next to you, because you are not, you are just different, we all are. 

Needless to say, I disagree with every single thing you said. However, since it's obvious both of us are set in our beliefs, I think further arguing would be futile.

[BronzTrooper]

Which goes right back to "Oh, you like murdering dozens of people for zero reason? That's fine, it's all the same!" Bleh.

 

Killing an enemy soldier in combat is war, kill of be killed. It's fair game there. I would argue the same of Stand Your Ground laws, at least in theory. And we, as humans, have decided to grant the Government the ability to make moral judgments. The problem with a random guy killing someone is that he has no objectivity. See Kain's relative example above. Maybe your brother was a total douche and deserved to die, but you loved him, so you go off and kill his killer. That's shortsighted, subjective revenge. In America at least, we have a court system with judges and juries to mete out justice, which is much more objective.

 

Ok, what?

 

Seriously, all I was trying to say is that morality is subjective and entirely depends on the person.  Like I said, I view killing as a fact of life, which is pretty much what you just supported, intentionally or not.  I don't like killing, but I don't see it as being evil.  It all depends on the situation, which supports why I think the 'sanctity of life' is BS, as I've already mentioned.  You obviously have a different view on killing than me, hence your morals can be considered to be different from mine.

 

Plus, saying that a soldier killing another soldier in combat or someone defending themselves under the Stand You Ground laws is objective compared to a random person killing another is wrong.  Soldiers are out to fight and survive, the latter automatically nullifying the objectivity you appear to claim.  Someone defending themselves under the Stand Your Ground laws is subjective too.  In fact, all forms of killing could be considered subjective.

 

As for the government, in a democracy, people can vote on most things, as you know.  Saying that someone suffering the death penalty is objective is subjective due to the fact that the government views the person's crime(s) as deserving it, hence, it is not objective.  Saying that something is subjective doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  It just means that it's perception may vary from person to person.

[animedreamer]

I wonder if Andraste had never came about, would Tevinter been able to defeat the Qunari?

[Jedi Master of Orion]

I doubt it. Andraste's march wasn't the root of the Imperium's decline. By the time the Qunari arrive I imagine they may well have been crumbling on their own.