squeegee !first/o5zA joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 9 hours later, 16 hours after the original post[^][v]#394,310
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
name one universal
★henn★ joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 18 hours after the original post[^][v]#394,344
Everything is relative
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 13 years ago, 7 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^][v]#394,348
@394,310 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
Depends what you mean by "universal". If you mean a moral principle that is true independent of time, place, etc. then there are a couple. Equal people ought to be treated equally, innocent people ought not to be harmed, and people ought to be given what they deserve. There might be some other bedrock principles but these thre jump to mind immediately. I didn't focus on ethics in my studies so this isn't exactly my forte.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU double-posted this 13 years ago, 14 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^][v]#394,349
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 17 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^][v]#394,368
@394,348 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Plenty of contradictory moral systems exist:
* Easy to argue that humanity is just an extension of the naturalist, animalistic, free-for-all that we came from, and that is the only way things should exist.
* Misanthropic philosopy goes against the idea of innocent humans.
* Need to define how it is determined what someone deserves in the first place. Nihilism would say no one deserves good or bad, there is simple what they get.
* Social Darwinism is a view many take seriously, and your distaste for it is only a subjective attack against it, not an objective counter-argument.
I could go on, these are just those I could bring up off the bat. You can't define what the true purpose of things are, or what people deserve, because it all ends up going back to emotion, or to cultural values.
American Southerner joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^][v]#394,370
If morality is relative, why can't I have sex with it?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 13 years ago, 9 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^][v]#394,375
@394,368 (A) > * Easy to argue that humanity is just an extension of the naturalist, animalistic, free-for-all that we came from, and that is the only way things should exist.
It's "easy to argue" in the sense that coming up with that idea requires minimal thought, but that's not exactly a selling point.
As for the rest of your stuff, objective morality doesn't state that there is zero disagreement over what the right thing to do is, or what the right ethical system is. All it claims is that there is at least one universally applicable moral principle. What exactly it is, and what its justifications are, etc. differ depending on what your ethical theory is, but the existence of widespread disagreement about a particular issue doesn't mean that there is no one right answer. That's a non-sequitur.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 2 hours later, 21 hours after the original post[^][v]#394,512
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU) > All it claims is that there is at least one universally applicable moral principle. What exactly it is, and what its justifications are, etc. differ depending on what your ethical theory is
So, there is one objective moral principle, and that depends on your ethical theory. In other words: Morality is subjective.
Can you say that Darwinism is inherently bad? If you've ever read Ishmael, that is a good argument against how human's have differentiated themselves from the naturalistic world, and is hardly something of "minimal thought", the author has written heavily about it. and makes a very compelling argument. Not to say I agree with it, but you can't say that idea of how things should be is even a little "less valid" than your own.
(Edited 36 seconds later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 13 years ago, 14 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^][v]#394,537
@previous (A)
No I said there's at least one. There could be 3 or 5 or 100. I'm not committed to any one number in particular, except to say there's at minimum, one. I am not exactly sure what you mean by "subjective", because if by subjective you mean "there is more than one plausible viewpoint on the matter", then yes it's "subjective" in that sense, but then again, so is pretty much every field of inquiry, from archaeology to zoology. If by subjective you mean "totally dependent on culture/individual preference" then no, it's not subjective. The fact that there is debate about what's right doesn't mean that there is no right answer. That just doesn't follow.
And no I wouldn't say that Darwinism is bad, unless you mean social darwinism, which I would say is a bad, because it is a textbook case of an appeal to nature fallacy. The fact that the world is a certain way in no way implies that that's the way the world should be. To assert that is just sloppy reasoning.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^][v]#394,542
@394,348 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU) > Equal people ought to be treated equally
no one is equal though
> innocent people ought not to be harmed
and yet you are a statist. must be hard to constantly support immorality and know it
> and people ought to be given what they deserve
meaningless. what do people deserve?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#394,579
@394,537 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
It's not subjective because there is a debate, it's subjective because the ideas of right and wrong are human creations, and untestable. You can say that something is objectively harmful/helpful, intelligent/idiotic, or selfish/selfless, but right and wrong are concepts that can't be logically built up or empirically tested.
Also, social darwinism isn't necessarily an appeal to nature, it could be a transhumanist, or ubermensch ideal.
Objective morality is a religious idea, and only a religious idea. You would need an objective judge (god), or some kind of mystical energy (Karma), to have morals be objective. The best you will get to without religion is simply defining what is harmful, or helpful, what is good for society, and other things. Those will all hinge of first principles themselves though, like "harm is bad", and "what's best for society is good".