Right Wing Discussion Thread XI: It's Okay To Be Right

[Republic of the Cristo]

Yeah and my usage of an iphone chokes kids in Chinese factories and poisons kids Peruvian mining towns. If you definition is simply based around harming others than that means a whoooooole lotta things need to get banned.

With that in mind, is there any objective way to improve subjective morality ( aside from just getting rid of it and turning Christian )?

1. I have an iPhone myself, but I agree that they should be made more ethically

2. There's no "objective" way to improve subjective morality. We can improve it from learning from its failures, such as how unregulated capitalism led to immense income inequality in the industrial revolution.

Also, the Bible's depiction of God in my mind makes him an immoral, oppressive bastard.

If there is no objective way to improve subjective morality than how can we classify something as a failure?

[Albrenia]

Also, the Bible's depiction of God in my mind makes him an immoral, oppressive bastard.

Jesus is a pretty cool guy though, mostly. I can leave the whole 'hell' thing, but a lot of his message was pretty good.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

I think you might have missed the point of what was being said. Nobody is saying that those sorts of people shouldn't be punished, or what they do isn't wrong to us.

Methinks you are attacking a strawman.

There was a discussion up above of how we shouldn't use religion for our basis in what is good and evil and how to implement good because religion ( and in turn, morality ) can not be scientifically proven. I am pointing out how dangerous and truly horrifying such a world view is.

Also, religion can be scientifically refuted or corroborated as it relies on factual statements such as "God exists", "The soul is punished for its sins in the afterlife", "The soul enters the body at 120 days into pregnancy", etc. Science has corroborated the claim that Muhammad was born in the 6th century CE and refuted the claim that the world will end if people are not sacrificed to the gods, for example.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

1. I have an iPhone myself, but I agree that they should be made more ethically

2. There's no "objective" way to improve subjective morality. We can improve it from learning from its failures, such as how unregulated capitalism led to immense income inequality in the industrial revolution.

Also, the Bible's depiction of God in my mind makes him an immoral, oppressive bastard.

If there is no objective way to improve subjective morality than how can we classify something as a failure?

If it makes people unnecessarily suffer

[Republic of the Cristo]

There was a discussion up above of how we shouldn't use religion for our basis in what is good and evil and how to implement good because religion ( and in turn, morality ) can not be scientifically proven. I am pointing out how dangerous and truly horrifying such a world view is.

Also, religion can be scientifically refuted or corroborated as it relies on factual statements such as "God exists", "The soul is punished for its sins in the afterlife", "The soul enters the body at 120 days into pregnancy", etc. Science has corroborated the claim that Muhammad was born in the 6th century CE and refuted the claim that the world will end if people are not sacrificed to the gods, for example.

Your first three statements cannot be scientifically analyzed - so science cannot prove or disprove them. Just like morality. Your last two parts not really related to the matter, as we are not discussing either ritual or when people were born, we are discussing subjective and objective morality.

[Republic of the Cristo]

If there is no objective way to improve subjective morality than how can we classify something as a failure?

If it makes people unnecessarily suffer

Why? Why is that the measure of failure? Can this be analyzed scientifically as the basis behind morality? What if I don't care if people suffer? What if I think that people unnecessarily suffering is morally good? What if a majority of society agrees with this sentiment?

[Albrenia]

If it makes people unnecessarily suffer

Why? Why is that the measure of failure? Can this be analyzed scientifically as the basis behind morality? What if I don't care if people suffer? What if I think that people unnecessarily suffering is morally good? What if a majority of society agrees with this sentiment?

Then you end up with a society who believe suffering is good. Sounds like a shitty place to live.

I prefer a society where the wellbeing of individuals and the whole are both important.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

If it makes people unnecessarily suffer

Why? Why is that the measure of failure? Can this be analyzed scientifically as the basis behind morality? What if I don't care if people suffer? What if I think that people unnecessarily suffering is morally good? What if a majority of society agrees with this sentiment?

That's an objective... objective, which is at its core based on human nature. There's no objective morality to achieve said objective.

[Republic of the Cristo]

Why? Why is that the measure of failure? Can this be analyzed scientifically as the basis behind morality? What if I don't care if people suffer? What if I think that people unnecessarily suffering is morally good? What if a majority of society agrees with this sentiment?

Then you end up with a society who believe suffering is good. Sounds like a shitty place to live.

I prefer a society where the wellbeing of individuals and the whole are both important.

Indeed, and subjective morality would permit such a thing to exist. When nothing is objectively moral, anything is permissible. I don't want to live in such a society, nor do I think most people. That objectivity can be found in religion.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

Why? Why is that the measure of failure? Can this be analyzed scientifically as the basis behind morality? What if I don't care if people suffer? What if I think that people unnecessarily suffering is morally good? What if a majority of society agrees with this sentiment?

Then you end up with a society who believe suffering is good. Sounds like a shitty place to live.

I prefer a society where the wellbeing of individuals and the whole are both important.

These shitholes (which have existed) tend to dehumanise whoever they cause suffering to (be it black people, Jews, people from the districts, etc.)

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

Then you end up with a society who believe suffering is good. Sounds like a shitty place to live.

I prefer a society where the wellbeing of individuals and the whole are both important.

Indeed, and subjective morality would permit such a thing to exist. When nothing is objectively moral, anything is permissible. I don't want to live in such a society, nor do I think most people. That objectivity can be found in religion.

Objective morality is far stronger in Sudan than the Netherlands. Most of us would agree that the Netherlands is far more moral than Sudan.

[Republic of the Cristo]

Why? Why is that the measure of failure? Can this be analyzed scientifically as the basis behind morality? What if I don't care if people suffer? What if I think that people unnecessarily suffering is morally good? What if a majority of society agrees with this sentiment?

That's an objective... objective, which is at its core based on human nature. There's no objective morality to achieve said objective.

Why should our moral system fit human nature? What if I don't want it to fit human nature, what if I want it to be some kind of other measure? Isn't this the same human nature which drove the child molesters in the first place? What about the numerous negative aspects of human nature, should these not be implemented as well? Are there not numerous disagreements about what is human nature?

[Albrenia]

Then you end up with a society who believe suffering is good. Sounds like a shitty place to live.

I prefer a society where the wellbeing of individuals and the whole are both important.

Indeed, and subjective morality would permit such a thing to exist. When nothing is objectively moral, anything is permissible. I don't want to live in such a society, nor do I think most people. That objectivity can be found in religion.

Claiming something is objective doesn't make it so. Other religions could say your religion is immoral with equal 'objective' backup.

[Irona]

Indeed, and subjective morality would permit such a thing to exist. When nothing is objectively moral, anything is permissible. I don't want to live in such a society, nor do I think most people. That objectivity can be found in religion.

Claiming something is objective doesn't make it so. Other religions could say your religion is immoral with equal 'objective' backup.

Exactly. Objective morality might sound good, but it doesn’t exist. You can always ask ‘why’ and eventually it comes down to subjectivity.

[Republic of the Cristo]

Indeed, and subjective morality would permit such a thing to exist. When nothing is objectively moral, anything is permissible. I don't want to live in such a society, nor do I think most people. That objectivity can be found in religion.

Objective morality is far stronger in Sudan than the Netherlands. Most of us would agree that the Netherlands is far more moral than Sudan.

Us? Who is us? Westerners or Muslims?

[Republic of the Cristo]

Indeed, and subjective morality would permit such a thing to exist. When nothing is objectively moral, anything is permissible. I don't want to live in such a society, nor do I think most people. That objectivity can be found in religion.

Claiming something is objective doesn't make it so. Other religions could say your religion is immoral with equal 'objective' backup.

Sure, but I don't care about other religions.

[Irona]

Claiming something is objective doesn't make it so. Other religions could say your religion is immoral with equal 'objective' backup.

Sure, but I don't care about other religions.

Cool, so your view is subjective

[Irona]

Objective morality is far stronger in Sudan than the Netherlands. Most of us would agree that the Netherlands is far more moral than Sudan.

Us? Who is us? Westerners or Muslims?

Objective morality means the values are correct everywhere. You can’t ask ‘to who is that objectively moral’ because the answer would be everyone if objective morality exists.

[Republic of the Cristo]

Sure, but I don't care about other religions.

Cool, so your view is subjective

I'm not saying it's not - but my dogma isn't. We live a part of the world were we are taught that anything is permissible if you feel like it is. A Christian society would not teach this, it would have a different dogma. This dogma would state that things are objectively good and evil. There is no debate on weather child molestation is right or wrong because it is known.

I would prefer that society compared to the former.

[Republic of the Cristo]

Us? Who is us? Westerners or Muslims?

Objective morality means the values are correct everywhere. You can’t ask ‘to who is that objectively moral’ because the answer would be everyone if objective morality exists.

Oh I think that the Netherlands is more moral than the Sudan - but I am a Christian, I have a measure. Someone without this basis only has feelings, constantly shifting and augmenting feelings.

[Irona]

Cool, so your view is subjective

I'm not saying it's not - but my dogma isn't. We live a part of the world were we are taught that anything is permissible if you feel like it is. A Christian society would not teach this, it would have a different dogma. This dogma would state that things are objectively good and evil. There is no debate on weather child molestation is right or wrong because it is known.

I would prefer that society compared to the former.

You don’t want Objective morals, you want Absolutist ones.

You can have objective morals that allow flexiblity. Absolutist ones are inflexible and usually lays clear moral rules for everyone to follow.

[Republic of the Cristo]

I'm not saying it's not - but my dogma isn't. We live a part of the world were we are taught that anything is permissible if you feel like it is. A Christian society would not teach this, it would have a different dogma. This dogma would state that things are objectively good and evil. There is no debate on weather child molestation is right or wrong because it is known.

I would prefer that society compared to the former.

You don’t want Objective morals, you want Absolutist ones.

You can have objective morals that allow flexiblity. Absolutist ones are inflexible and usually lays clear moral rules for everyone to follow.

I thought the two terms were used interchangeably? If I am mistaken, then sure to the later.

[Irona]

You don’t want Objective morals, you want Absolutist ones.

You can have objective morals that allow flexiblity. Absolutist ones are inflexible and usually lays clear moral rules for everyone to follow.

I thought the two terms were used interchangeably? If I am mistaken, then sure to the later.

They’re usually applied to the same thing, because absolutist morals are usually justified by claiming to be objective. But they don’t actually mean the same thing.

You can say ‘suffering is objectively bad’ but utilitarianism isn’t an absolutist morality.

[The East Marches II]

Yeah, kind of like how some bigots believe Child Molesters should go to jail. Since evil is just subjective and there is no scientific way to prove what is and is not evil, who are we to say that these people should be out of society?

Child molesters should be out of society as they cause suffering to the children they molest. There is no universal definition of evil, but we can make and improve our own definition of evil.

I come back and RWDT has to deal with more stupid ideas from the 90s. Another for the trash bin.

[The East Marches II]

When did morality become "is a person harmed by this?"

What happened to virtue?

When we rejected the idea of imposing a universal worldview on society. We now argue on different moral planes, the only solution to such disputes becomes the gun.