Why do you choose to be wrong?

by **Conserative Morality** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 9:17 pm

Let's discuss morality and the basis for which one determines correctness and moral judgement particularly in the examination of the morality of others.

Basically, why are ~~you wrong when I'm right~~ you right when others are wrong? Is there a right and a wrong that can be determined, in any fashion? Is one ever justified in standing for one's moral code if there is no right and wrong?

by **Costa Fierro** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 9:18 pm

There is no right or wrong, just popular opinion.

by **Gim** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 9:19 pm

All a value of subjectivity. Subjectivity is not credible in most times.

by **Conserative Morality** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 9:21 pm

Costa Fierro wrote:There is no right or wrong, just popular opinion.

So does morality exist at all, in any meaningful sense? Is there any purpose in fighting for anything? For believing in anything?

by **Unnamed island state** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 9:21 pm

I really dislike moral relativism but I don't see how it can be rejected. It'd be pretty dismal if the only basis for morality is whether you like something or not.

Basically I don't think there is a way to tell right and wrong.

At the same time most people educated in philosophy are moral realists. http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

So I could just be dumb.

by **The Liberated Territories** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 9:22 pm

I am right. Everyone else goes to gulag.

by **Gim** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 9:25 pm

The Liberated Territories wrote:I am right. Everyone else goes to gulag.

Gulag no longer exists.

by **MERIZoC** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 9:25 pm

TIL you can put links in the poll. Also yay for Existential Comics.

by **The Liberated Territories** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 9:26 pm

Gim wrote:
The Liberated Territories wrote:I am right. Everyone else goes to gulag.

Gulag no longer exists.

It's okay, we still got FEMA camps, which are basically the same thing.

by **Gim** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 9:27 pm

The Liberated Territories wrote:
Gim wrote:
Gulag no longer exists.

It's okay, we still got FEMA camps, which are basically the same thing.

Or North Korean prison camps.

by **Conserative Morality** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 9:30 pm

Merizoc wrote:TIL you can put links in the poll. Also yay for Existential Comics.

Easily best webcomic

by **The Liberated Territories** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 9:31 pm

Gim wrote:
The Liberated Territories wrote:
It's okay, we still got FEMA camps, which are basically the same thing.

Or North Korean prison camps.

Ever hear some of the zany stuff that supposedly happens in them? Crazy stuff man.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/d ... rison-camp

by **Jordkloden** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 9:32 pm

I'm never wrong! NEEEEEEEVER!!!! except for that one time....

by **Costa Fierro** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 9:32 pm

Conserative Morality wrote:
Costa Fierro wrote:There is no right or wrong, just popular opinion.

So does morality exist at all, in any meaningful sense? Is there any purpose in fighting for anything? For believing in anything?

Morality exists but what it consists of is down to the individual person. What someone thinks is right and wrong is entirely different to someone else's ideas. Essentially your "morals" are what you as a person think is right and wrong.

by **Gim** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 9:32 pm

The Liberated Territories wrote:
Gim wrote:
Or North Korean prison camps.

Ever hear some of the zany stuff that supposedly happens in them? Crazy stuff man.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/d ... rison-camp

Exactly. It's brutal, and you can't even escape from it, since there are electric fences and people are too weak to even get out of the camps.

by **Conserative Morality** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 9:34 pm

Costa Fierro wrote:Morality exists but what it consists of is down to the individual person. What someone thinks is right and wrong is entirely different to someone else's ideas. Essentially your "morals" are what you as a person think is right and wrong.

There is no right or wrong, just popular opinion.

And so how does one go about applying morals if one does not believe that there is right and wrong? I'm essentially asking if you think there's justification for acting morally if you believe that right and wrong are purely personal concepts.

by **The Liberated Territories** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 9:36 pm

More on topic:

I am mostly a rule-consequentialist, who's basic beliefs are grounded in Kantian logic - what I believe to be universals that should be applied everywhere, such as voluntary interactions and free market, are a result of their consistency in my mind to provide the best results for humanity from lifting millions out of poverty to ending wars.

by **Unnamed island state** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 9:39 pm

Conserative Morality wrote:
Costa Fierro wrote:Morality exists but what it consists of is down to the individual person. What someone thinks is right and wrong is entirely different to someone else's ideas. Essentially your "morals" are what you as a person think is right and wrong.

There is no right or wrong, just popular opinion.

And so how does one go about applying morals if one does not believe that there is right and wrong? I'm essentially asking if you think there's justification for acting morally if you believe that right and wrong are purely personal concepts.

If right and wrong don't exist, why would there be justification or a reason not to act morally? It'd be subjective, there would be no reason to do anything.

by **Unnamed island state** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 9:39 pm

The Liberated Territories wrote:More on topic:

I am mostly a rule-consequentialist, who's basic beliefs are grounded in Kantian logic - what I believe to be universals that should be applied everywhere, such as voluntary interactions and free market, are a result of their consistency in my mind to provide the best results for humanity from lifting millions out of poverty to ending wars.

Why should we lift millions out of poverty and end wars?

by **Costa Fierro** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 9:41 pm

Conserative Morality wrote:And so how does one go about applying morals if one does not believe that there is right and wrong?

If you don't believe morals exist, then you don't try to apply them. And vice versa.

I'm essentially asking if you think there's justification for acting morally if you believe that right and wrong are purely personal concepts.

Yes, because you can act in accordance with your morals. It doesn't stop them being personal concepts but it recognizes their existence and their application at an individual level.

I also may or may not have been trying to be edgy when I made my first comment. Shrodinger's Edge, if you will.

by **The Liberated Territories** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 9:41 pm

Unnamed island state wrote:
The Liberated Territories wrote:More on topic:

I am mostly a rule-consequentialist, who's basic beliefs are grounded in Kantian logic - what I believe to be universals that should be applied everywhere, such as voluntary interactions and free market, are a result of their consistency in my mind to provide the best results for humanity from lifting millions out of poverty to ending wars.

Why should we lift millions out of poverty and end wars?

Because they are good consequences.

by **Gim** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 9:42 pm

Unnamed island state wrote:
The Liberated Territories wrote:More on topic:

I am mostly a rule-consequentialist, who's basic beliefs are grounded in Kantian logic - what I believe to be universals that should be applied everywhere, such as voluntary interactions and free market, are a result of their consistency in my mind to provide the best results for humanity from lifting millions out of poverty to ending wars.

Why should we lift millions out of poverty and end wars?

As for ending wars, we are provided peace. I'm not sure about the poverty part.

by **Unnamed island state** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 9:43 pm

The Liberated Territories wrote:
Unnamed island state wrote:Why should we lift millions out of poverty and end wars?

Because they are good consequences.

Why should we promote good consequences?

by **Conserative Morality** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 9:44 pm

Costa Fierro wrote:Yes, because you can act in accordance with your morals. It doesn't stop them being personal concepts but it recognizes their existence and their application at an individual level.

I also may or may not have been trying to be edgy when I made my first comment. Shrodinger's Edge, if you will.

But every action in service to a code of morality is ultimately an imposition of that subjective, personal morality on an outside world. If the subjectivity of morality matters, then why is it appropriate to impose it on a world that does not see things the same way you do?

by **Conserative Morality** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 9:46 pm

The Liberated Territories wrote:Because they are good consequences.

What makes them good consequences? A fascist would say that war is its own reward, and peace the pursuit of cowards. For them, a positive consequence would be an eternal, or at least recurring, war. There are sects of Christianity that would argue that poverty itself is a moral good, and desirable.