@trick0171 Then I guess I got what you were saying. ^_^ I will likely address the best out of the counter arguments in another video...some time in the future...
What would be your thoughts on a certain group of people defining the act of purging the earth of inferior races as morally good, while another group of people defines the same action as morally evil? Basically, do you think that there is an objective moral truth that is independent of man's definitions?
All definitions are subjective, but trees objectively exist. The objective truth here is that trees (or whatever you wish to call that object I see outside my house) exists.
If morality is objective, then there are certain things we should or shouldn't do regardless of whatever words we choose to use in order to describe objects.
@Epydemic2020 If the act of deliberately causing pain to another individual objectively exists. We can label this as "immoral" and it will always be immoral in the same way that a tree will always be a tree.
But notice this isn't a debate about "what should we call it"? Just translate the definitions in your mind to the thing they are describing. A tree is just "that object I see outside my window" and "immoral' is just "things I should or shouldn't do" (aka prescription).
Trees objectively exist even if we didn't call them trees.
Raping people for fun is something we ought not do even if we didn't call it rape.
Reguardless of whether you label it "immoral" or not, it is still something we ought not do. Reguardless if you call a tree a "tree" that object I see outside of my window exists.
Definitions are subjective. The thing which we are trying to define is not.
"I don't think we get to decide what is moral at all, I think we recognize it as immoral"
We recognize it after we define what we mean by the term ("moral/immoral")...and in the context of such meaning. In the case of the consequentialist, what (conscious) actions leads to harm would be defined as "immoral" actions...and we prescribe to those who are concerned about acting morally.
We make intuitive deliberations about what morality is prior to coming up with a moral philosophy (hedonism, satanism, utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics etc).
I can say "you shouldn't rape people for entertainment" reguardless of whether or not the person is concerned with acting morally. If he had to be concerned about morality in order to my statement to be meaningful then you are using "should" in a descriptive rather than a prescriptive way.
Saying "you shouldn't rape people for entertainment" to someone that could care less about doing the moral thing of not raping is,... unless the "should" is in the form of explaining the consequence to them (jail, etc), ...pointless. Telling an immoral person who knows they are immoral but does not care not to do something because it is immoral is quite silly.
What we can say is X is moral or immoral, and then prescribe to those that want to be moral to get a democratic vote to make such actions either legal or illegal based on the (objective) moral.
And no, we do not make deliberations about (the word) "morality" until we have a moral philosophy (ie. consequentialism, deontology, virtue, etc) in which "morality" is defined as a descriptor of certain types of action that fall into the category of said philosophy.
Hey...a quote from mwa :) LOL. When did I type that comment?
I'm glad you agree.
trick0171 4 months ago
@trick0171 awhile ago but I intended to make this video when I got around to it xP
WolfSyndrome 4 months ago
@WolfSyndrome
I like you analogy btw. :)
trick0171 4 months ago
@trick0171 Then I guess I got what you were saying. ^_^ I will likely address the best out of the counter arguments in another video...some time in the future...
WolfSyndrome 4 months ago
It seems to me that trees are what they are, independent of what we call them. Arboles son arboles, y arboles son trees.
weseeinpart 4 months ago
What would be your thoughts on a certain group of people defining the act of purging the earth of inferior races as morally good, while another group of people defines the same action as morally evil? Basically, do you think that there is an objective moral truth that is independent of man's definitions?
weseeinpart 4 months ago
@weseeinpart No. Trees are not objectively trees outside of man's definitions either.
WolfSyndrome 4 months ago
@WolfSyndrome
All definitions are subjective, but trees objectively exist. The objective truth here is that trees (or whatever you wish to call that object I see outside my house) exists.
If morality is objective, then there are certain things we should or shouldn't do regardless of whatever words we choose to use in order to describe objects.
Epydemic2020 4 months ago
@Epydemic2020 If the act of deliberately causing pain to another individual objectively exists. We can label this as "immoral" and it will always be immoral in the same way that a tree will always be a tree.
WolfSyndrome 4 months ago
@WolfSyndrome
But notice this isn't a debate about "what should we call it"? Just translate the definitions in your mind to the thing they are describing. A tree is just "that object I see outside my window" and "immoral' is just "things I should or shouldn't do" (aka prescription).
Epydemic2020 4 months ago
@Epydemic2020 How is this not a debate about what we should call something?
WolfSyndrome 4 months ago
@Epydemic2020 How is this not a debate about what we should call something?
WolfSyndrome 4 months ago
@WolfSyndrome
Trees objectively exist even if we didn't call them trees.
Raping people for fun is something we ought not do even if we didn't call it rape.
Reguardless of whether you label it "immoral" or not, it is still something we ought not do. Reguardless if you call a tree a "tree" that object I see outside of my window exists.
Definitions are subjective. The thing which we are trying to define is not.
Epydemic2020 4 months ago
@Epydemic2020 We labeled it rape BECAUSE we decided it is immoral.
WolfSyndrome 4 months ago
@WolfSyndrome
I don't think we get to decide what is moral at all, I think we recognize it as immoral.
Epydemic2020 4 months ago
@Epydemic2020 Same thing.
WolfSyndrome 4 months ago
@Epydemic2020
"I don't think we get to decide what is moral at all, I think we recognize it as immoral"
We recognize it after we define what we mean by the term ("moral/immoral")...and in the context of such meaning. In the case of the consequentialist, what (conscious) actions leads to harm would be defined as "immoral" actions...and we prescribe to those who are concerned about acting morally.
trick0171 4 months ago
@trick0171
We make intuitive deliberations about what morality is prior to coming up with a moral philosophy (hedonism, satanism, utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics etc).
I can say "you shouldn't rape people for entertainment" reguardless of whether or not the person is concerned with acting morally. If he had to be concerned about morality in order to my statement to be meaningful then you are using "should" in a descriptive rather than a prescriptive way.
Epydemic2020 3 months ago
@Epydemic2020
Saying "you shouldn't rape people for entertainment" to someone that could care less about doing the moral thing of not raping is,... unless the "should" is in the form of explaining the consequence to them (jail, etc), ...pointless. Telling an immoral person who knows they are immoral but does not care not to do something because it is immoral is quite silly.
(MORE 1)
trick0171 3 months ago
What we can say is X is moral or immoral, and then prescribe to those that want to be moral to get a democratic vote to make such actions either legal or illegal based on the (objective) moral.
And no, we do not make deliberations about (the word) "morality" until we have a moral philosophy (ie. consequentialism, deontology, virtue, etc) in which "morality" is defined as a descriptor of certain types of action that fall into the category of said philosophy.
(END 2)
trick0171 3 months ago