Objective Morality vs Situational Morality

No description available.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Untitled

[bla34112]

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?

[FlyingFree333]

@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.

[bla34112]

@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.

[FlyingFree333]

@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.

[bla34112]

@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.

[FlyingFree333]

@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.

[bla34112]

@IdaMiaDot

dunno what you wrote.. but its cool ;P

[bla34112]

@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.

[IdaMiaDot]

@bla34112 Oh, sorry. I misinterpreted your comment.

[IdaMiaDot]

@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.