I dispute that there is such a thing as objective morality.
Killing someone for entertainment is only immoral because it offends your specific view of the world.
Gladiator games were once viewed as manly, honorable and daring, free men would sometimes choose to become a gladiator.
Whether or not something is beneficial to humanity as a whole is also subjective. It depends what you value most. Do you value stability or freedom more?
Forcing slaves to fight to the death for entertainment was always immoral, the only thing that changed, as I already explained in the video, is people hadn't figured that fact out yet.
1. Is that that force isnt necessarily involved in those games. Another version of those were the greek games, death happened, but the competitions were mostly among free men.
2. Some people simply dont value human live the same way you or I do.
Some people value animal live more than we do.
You simply cannot take the values you have and say: Those are the only values and there are no other.
Values are not morals, values are subjective and change. That fact that someone has fucked up values does not make slavery moral EVER. The fact that someone is so twisted, evil, insane or ignorant as to think genocide is ok does NOT make it moral EVER. Values are indoctrinated social norms, morality is the objective measurement of whether an act is harmful (bad) or helpful (good). Someone with fucked up values can't properly evaluate morality.
I am talking about values because moral systems are based on values.
Let's take a not so crass example.
Vegetarians put a certain value on the live of an animal. Therefore they conclude that it is immoral for them to kill animals, since they really don't need to for survival.
I don't put a high value on the live of the animal, therefore I don't consider it immoral to eat them.
Both cases are valid moral systems, yet with conflicting results.
Vegetarians are deluded, they deny mountains of facts about biology, agriculture, biology, etc. they would be yet another example of someone who can't accurately evaluate morality because their values are screwed up. Whether something is moral or immoral is OBJECTIVE, does not change and isn't based on anyone's subjective values. As I said slavery is immoral whether anyone realizes it or not, just like the world is round whether anyone realizes it or not.
@FlyingFree333 "Vegetarians are deluded, they deny mountains of facts about biology, agriculture, biology, etc."
Could you elaborate?
If you are alluding to health then I can provide you with a number of peer-reviewed medical journals comparing the health of omnivores and vegetarians. If you are alluding to animals killed in harvest then there is a body of argumentation surrounding that also.
I was trying to come up with something-centric too, couldnt think of it.
I mean, i wasnt looking for human-centric, but i just found it amusing, cause i spent some time racking my brain what it was.. cultural-centric, western-centric.. just didnt seem to fit right.
Exactly. Of course this is based on a specific realist and consequentialist type of ethic that says what is important to an ethic is the output of our actions and what benefits consciousness (defined as thus). It is certainly the type of ethics I subscribe to and push for.
It is a little different than other types such as deontological ethics (rule based) and virtue ethics, as it places the focus on the output of an act first.
To a degree this is correct, however, the realist would argue that the negative state one experiences is an inherent negative state that comes about through an objective configuration of matter and energy, and that we can define actions that unnecessarily lead to such state as unethical.
It may also be argued by relativists that the is/ought problems shows we cannot derive an "ought" from an "is". This too is true, however, it is important to be clear where such is/ought problem resides. It resides after the moral or ethic is understood via an "is" (ie. such action leads to such and such negative or beneficial state). It is bypassed by using an "if": IF one desires to act ethically, one OUGHT..." It is not prior to the prescription itself.
Anyway...just some food for thought. After my book on the lack of free will is done I plan on writing one on ethics. Such topics I have given a whole lot of thought to. Just giving you some warning was to what criticisms you may come across.
@bla34112 Oh, sorry. I misinterpreted your comment.
IdaMiaDot 1 month ago
@IdaMiaDot
dunno what you wrote.. but its cool ;P
bla34112 1 month ago
Comment removed
IdaMiaDot 1 month ago
I dispute that there is such a thing as objective morality.
Killing someone for entertainment is only immoral because it offends your specific view of the world.
Gladiator games were once viewed as manly, honorable and daring, free men would sometimes choose to become a gladiator.
Whether or not something is beneficial to humanity as a whole is also subjective. It depends what you value most. Do you value stability or freedom more?
Do you value long live more, or excitement?
bla34112 1 month ago
@bla34112
Forcing slaves to fight to the death for entertainment was always immoral, the only thing that changed, as I already explained in the video, is people hadn't figured that fact out yet.
FlyingFree333 1 month ago
@FlyingFree333
You are ignoring certain aspects here:
1. Is that that force isnt necessarily involved in those games. Another version of those were the greek games, death happened, but the competitions were mostly among free men.
2. Some people simply dont value human live the same way you or I do.
Some people value animal live more than we do.
You simply cannot take the values you have and say: Those are the only values and there are no other.
bla34112 1 month ago
@bla34112
Values are not morals, values are subjective and change. That fact that someone has fucked up values does not make slavery moral EVER. The fact that someone is so twisted, evil, insane or ignorant as to think genocide is ok does NOT make it moral EVER. Values are indoctrinated social norms, morality is the objective measurement of whether an act is harmful (bad) or helpful (good). Someone with fucked up values can't properly evaluate morality.
FlyingFree333 1 month ago
@FlyingFree333
I am talking about values because moral systems are based on values.
Let's take a not so crass example.
Vegetarians put a certain value on the live of an animal. Therefore they conclude that it is immoral for them to kill animals, since they really don't need to for survival.
I don't put a high value on the live of the animal, therefore I don't consider it immoral to eat them.
Both cases are valid moral systems, yet with conflicting results.
bla34112 1 month ago
@bla34112
Vegetarians are deluded, they deny mountains of facts about biology, agriculture, biology, etc. they would be yet another example of someone who can't accurately evaluate morality because their values are screwed up. Whether something is moral or immoral is OBJECTIVE, does not change and isn't based on anyone's subjective values. As I said slavery is immoral whether anyone realizes it or not, just like the world is round whether anyone realizes it or not.
FlyingFree333 1 month ago
@FlyingFree333 "Vegetarians are deluded, they deny mountains of facts about biology, agriculture, biology, etc."
Could you elaborate?
If you are alluding to health then I can provide you with a number of peer-reviewed medical journals comparing the health of omnivores and vegetarians. If you are alluding to animals killed in harvest then there is a body of argumentation surrounding that also.
IdaMiaDot 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FlyingFree333 "Values are indoctrinated social norms, morality is the objective measurement of whether an act is harmful (bad) or helpful (good)."
"...they would be yet another example of someone who can't accurately evaluate morality because their values are screwed up."
You have a surprisingly human-centric view of utilitarianism.
Why would you discount bonobos and dolphins arbitrarily when they can be both harmed (bad) and helped (good)?
IdaMiaDot 1 month ago
@IdaMiaDot
I was trying to come up with something-centric too, couldnt think of it.
I mean, i wasnt looking for human-centric, but i just found it amusing, cause i spent some time racking my brain what it was.. cultural-centric, western-centric.. just didnt seem to fit right.
bla34112 1 month ago
Exactly. Of course this is based on a specific realist and consequentialist type of ethic that says what is important to an ethic is the output of our actions and what benefits consciousness (defined as thus). It is certainly the type of ethics I subscribe to and push for.
It is a little different than other types such as deontological ethics (rule based) and virtue ethics, as it places the focus on the output of an act first.
trick0171 1 month ago
(MORE 1)
The rules and virtue being based on the output rather that their inherent nature.
The moral relativist or subjectivist may claim that "benefiting consciousness" is a desire that is subjective, and hence not objective.
(MORE 2)
trick0171 1 month ago
To a degree this is correct, however, the realist would argue that the negative state one experiences is an inherent negative state that comes about through an objective configuration of matter and energy, and that we can define actions that unnecessarily lead to such state as unethical.
(MORE 3)
trick0171 1 month ago
It may also be argued by relativists that the is/ought problems shows we cannot derive an "ought" from an "is". This too is true, however, it is important to be clear where such is/ought problem resides. It resides after the moral or ethic is understood via an "is" (ie. such action leads to such and such negative or beneficial state). It is bypassed by using an "if": IF one desires to act ethically, one OUGHT..." It is not prior to the prescription itself.
(MORE 4)
trick0171 1 month ago
Anyway...just some food for thought. After my book on the lack of free will is done I plan on writing one on ethics. Such topics I have given a whole lot of thought to. Just giving you some warning was to what criticisms you may come across.
Cya,
'Trick
(END 5)
trick0171 1 month ago